Government sanction not needed to prosecute cops who file false cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday held that a police official who lodges a false case against an individual cannot claim immunity from prosecution under the guise of official duty [Om Prakash Yadav v. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay and Others]..A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra said protection of Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) cannot be extended to such officers who misuse or abuse their powers.Section 197 of the CrPC protects public servants from prosecution if they are accused of committing a crime while acting in discharge of their duties. It says that prior sanction must be obtained from the government for prosecuting such official. "This Court has held in a legion of decisions that any misuse or abuse of powers by a public servant to do something that is impermissible in law like threatening to provide a tutored statement or trying to obtain signatures on a blank sheet of paper; causing the illegal detention of an accused; engaging in a criminal conspiracy to create false or fabricated documents; conducting a search with the sole object of harassing and threatening individuals, amongst others, cannot fall under the protective umbrella of Section 197 CrPC," the Court said..Thus, the Court ruled that when a police official is accused of registering a false case, he cannot claim the benefit of Section 197 CrPC.It can be no part of the official duty of a public official to lodge a bogus case and fabricate evidence or documents in connection with the same, the Court reasoned."On examining the quality of the act, it is evident that there exists no reasonable or rational nexus between , it follows that when a police official is said to have lodged a false case, he cannot claim that sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC was required since it can be no part of the official duty of a public official to lodge a bogus case and fabricate evidence or documents in connection with the same," it added..It further said that the mere fact that a wrongful act such as registering a false case arose out of official duty does not automatically bring the act within the purview of Section 197 CrPC."Allowing so, would enable the accused to use their status as public servants as a facade for doing an objectionable, illegal and unlawful act and take undue advantage of their position," the Court said..The Court made these observations while dealing with a case in which officials of Madhya Pradesh (MP) Police stood accused of registering a false case to create an alibi for a man accused of murder in Uttar Pradesh (UP).On October 12 in 2007, a teacher Suman Prakash Yadav was allegedly killed by Surender Singh Gurjar, Veerbhan Gurjar, Ashok Dixit, Pappu Dixit, Sanjay Dixit and three others.On the same day, MP Police arrested Ashok Dixit in a case under Excise Act for carrying 12 bottles of illegal foreign liquor. He was later released on bail the same day.The UP Police later found that the Excise Act case was fabricated to create a false alibi for Ashok Dixit, a relative of one of the cops in MP.In 2012, the trial court in Firozabad found 12 accused including Ashok Dixit guilty of murder. Meanwhile, the issue related to prosecution of the MP police officials continued to remain pending. The Allahabad High Court in 2018 quashed the criminal proceedings against them for lack of sanction under Section 197 CrPC. The murder victim's brother then moved the Supreme Court..The top court opined that no cogent evidence was presented by three accused police officials to support their bonafides. "So far as the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 respectively are concerned, if the case of the prosecution that they had also played a dubious role in registering a false case is correct then the requirement of sanction would not be a sin qua non for proceeding further with the criminal proceedings. However, the defence must be given an opportunity to rebut the same by leading appropriate evidence," it said. With regard to the fourth police official, the Court said there would be no requirement for sanction since he was not acting in the discharge of his official duty since he was not even posted at Murar Police Station, Gwalior where the Excise Act case was registered. .Concluding that the High Court should not have been quashed the proceedings at such a preliminary stage, the top court said,"In case where there is a legitimate doubt as regards whether sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC is required or not, the progress of the trial must not be hampered or unnecessarily delayed. Therefore, the CJM, Firozabad had rightly taken cognizance of the two charge sheets vide its orders dated 24.11.2008 and 10.08.2009 respectively. The High Court committed an error in failing to consider this aspect while quashing the proceedings in Case No. 67 of 2008 and 67A of 2009 respectively vide its impugned order".While directing the trial court to proceed with the trial, the Supreme Court clarified that if the evidence in future suggests that the Excise Act case was indeed registered in the discharge of official duty and was not bogus, the trial may be stayed for want of sanction."The question of sanction only qua respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 respectively is left open to be appropriately decided by the Trial Court at a suitable stage, in accordance with the law, without being prejudiced by any of the observations made in this order as well as in the order passed by the High Court. As these proceedings arise from a case registered more than 16 years ago, the Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial & conclude it expeditiously preferably within one year from today," it added..Senior Advocate Ravindra Singh appeared for the appellant.Senior Advocate R Basant appeared for respondents..[Read Judgment]