Supreme Court in the case of Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka & Anr
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:125490 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9518 of 2024 Applicant :- Parashuram Rai Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Chaurasia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Chaurasia, learned counsel for the applicant.
Legal Reasoning
2. Applicant before this Court is a complainant who has filed a complaint case against Government officials that they have committed forgery in official documents and committed an illegal act which were beyond their official duty. The application filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. by complainant was treated as a complaint case and thereafter statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively were recorded wherein also same version was alleged. Certain documents were also placed before learned Trial Court who after taking note of allegations made in complaint as as well as in the statements of witnesses that it was against government officials, therefore, prosecution cannot continue in absence of sanction as provided under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and application was rejected by impugned order dated 7.10.2023.
Legal Reasoning
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that alleged act by government officials were beyond their official duty, therefore, there is no need for any sanction as required under Section 197 Cr.P.C. 4. I have carefully perused the impugned order as well as documents annexed along with this application. 5. Learned counsel for applicant has relied upon statement of complainant, statement of witnesses as well as documents annexed along with this application. 6. A perusal of documents i.e Akar Patr itself does not prove that documents were forged as well as there is no material on record that orders passed against government officials were challenged in due process by any party including the applicant. 7. Supreme Court in the case of Shadakshari Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 48 has held as under: "7. That the protection given under Section 197 is to protect responsible public servants against the institution of possibly vexatious criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have been committed by them while they are acting or purporting to act as public servants. The policy of the legislature is to afford adequate protection to public servants to ensure that they are not prosecuted for anything done by them in the discharge of their official duties without reasonable cause, and if sanction is granted, to confer on the Government, if they choose to exercise it, complete control of the prosecution. This protection has certain limits and is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. If in doing his official duty, he acted in excess of his duty, but there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of the official duty, the excess will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the public servant of the protection. The question is not as to the nature of the offence such as whether the alleged offence contained an element necessarily dependent upon the offender being a public servant, but whether it was committed by a public servant acting or purporting to act as such in the discharge of his official capacity. Before Section 197 can be invoked, it must be shown that the official concerned was accused of an offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties. It is not the duty which requires examination so much as the act, because the official act can be performed both in the discharge of the official duty as well as in dereliction of it. The act must fall within the scope and range of the official duties of the public servant concerned. It is the quality of the act which is important and the protection of this section is available if the act falls within the scope and range of his official duty. There cannot be any universal rule to determine whether there is a reasonable connection between the act done and the official duty, nor is it possible to lay down any such rule. One safe and sure test in this regard would be to consider if the omission or neglect on the part of the public servant to commit the act complained of could have made him answerable for a charge of dereliction of his official duty. If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, it may be said that such act was committed by the public servant while acting in the discharge of his official duty and there was every connection with the act complained of and the official duty of the public servant. This aspect makes it clear that the concept of Section 197 does not get immediately attracted on institution of the complaint case." 8. I this regard I have carefully perused statement of the complainant, which is reproduced hereinafter: " बययान अन्तररत धयारया 200 सस . आर . पस . सस . वयादस - परशशुरयाम रयाय उम्र 59 वरर पशुत्र स्व० रयामरगोववन्द रयाय पपेशया खपेतस सया० कगोवठियया थयानया नरहस जजिलया बजलयया नपे आजि वदनयानांक 10.01.23 कगो सशपथ बययान वकयया वक- ममौजिया सपेन्दशुररयया पर० रड़हया तहससल व जजिलया बजलयया मम आकयार -पत्र 45 कपे अनशुसयार खयातया सनां० 137 मम बनांजिर भभूवम कपे रूप मम दजिर सशुरवक्षित मद क्रमशश आ०ननां0 42 कशु म्हयार ककी वमटस हपेतशु सशुरवक्षित आ०ननां० 72 चमड़या वनकयालनपे हपेतशु सशुरवक्षित आ०ननां0 125 खपेल कपे ममैदयान हपेतशु सशुरवक्षित आ 0 ननां0 124 खयाद कपे रड़हया हपेतशु सशुरवक्षित , आ 0 ननां0 126 पनांचयायत घर हपेतशु सशुरवक्षित आ०वन० 127 वम० हररजिन आबयादस हपेतशु सशुरवक्षित वकयया रयया हमै। उपरगोक्त ववररत आकयार पत्र 45 कपे अनशुसयार सशुरवक्षित ककी रयस बनांजिर भभूवम ककी नकल खतमौनस 1377 फसलस वरर मम ठिसक उसस प्रकयार वदखलयायया रयया। लपेवकन नकल खतमौनस 1380-82 फसलस वरर मम आकयार पत्र 45 मम दजिर सयारपे मद अवभलपेख सपे हटया वदयपे रयपे। पशुनश नकल खतमौनस 1389-94 फसलस वरर मम खपेल कपे ममैदयान हपेतशु सशुरवक्षित नयाम कया दगो मद बढयातपे हहए आकयार पत्र मम दजिर सयारया मद पशुनश दजिर कया वकयया रयया। और 45 खयातया सनांख्यया 137 कगो बदलकर 149 कर वदयया रयया। जजिसकया इन्दयाजि नकल खसरया 1394, 1395 व 1396 फसलस वरर मम भस दजिर हमै। ठिसक इसस प्रकयार नकल खतमौनस 1427-32 फसलस वरर मम उपरगोक्त ववररत आरयाजजिययात कया खयातया ननां 0 149 सपे बदल कर 170 कर वदयया रयया और आकयार पत्र 45 मम दजिर सयारपे मद पशुनश हटया वदयपे रयपे। इतनया हस नहस नकल खसरया 1426 फसलस वरर मम आकयार पत्र 45 मम दजिर सयारया मद हटया कर तहससल कपे अजधकयाररययों दयारया आवयादस दजिर कर वदयया रयया। इस प्रकयार अजधकयाररययों दयारया ररश्वत लपेकर ववजध ववरूद्ध तररकपे सपे सशुरवक्षित जिमसन जजिसककी प्रकक वत मम वकसस भस हयालत मम पररवतरन नहहीं वकयया जिया सकतया हमै , कपे प्रकक वत कगो कई बयार बदलया रयया और इस प्रकयार उक्त सशुरवक्षित जिमसन यया असलस कपे रूप मम उपयगोर करतपे हहए अवमैध कब्जिया करयायया रयया। इस प्रकयार अवभलपेख कगो सशुवनशश्चत रखनपे वयालपे जजिम्मपेदयार अजधकयाररययों दयारया जियान बभूझकर कब्जिया करयानपे ककी वनयत सपे कई बयार कभू ट रचनया ककी रयस और आकयार पत्र 45 मम दजिर मद कगो कई बयार बदलया रयया , उस उक्त सशुरवक्षित जिमसन कगो आबयादस दजिर कर अपनपे चयाहनपे वयालपे लगोरगो कगो ररश्वत लपेकर कब्जिया कर वदयया रयया।" 9. Above referred statement is general in nature. The alleged allegation of change in nature of land does not appear even prima- facie on basis of said allegations as well as they are not supported by any concrete materials. 10. Court also takes note that none of changed nature of land was challenged by any of affected parties before the Court concerned, therefore, on basis of vague material, protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. could not be waived. The procedure for changing nature of land is also not on record 11. In aforesaid circumstances, I don't find any illegality in the impugned order. However, applicant is always at liberty to approach the authority concerned for sanction.
Decision
12. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. Order Date :- 5.8.2024 SB