Allahabad High Court

Instant application u/s 482 has been filed with the prayer to quash order dated 02-09-2025 passed in Case no. 4426 of 2021bearing case crime no. 101 of 1994, u/s 420/467/468/409 of I.P.C., P.S. - Mailani, District Lakhimpur Kheri and to stay the entire criminal proceedings pending against the applicant arising out of case crime no. 101 of 1994, u/s 420/467/468/409 I.P.C., P.S. - Mailani, District Lakhimpur Kheri. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a public servant and no criminal proceeding can go on ,unless the prosecution sanction is granted, as is mandated under section 197 of Cr.P.C. Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is quoted hereinunder:- "(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction- (a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed. in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government: (b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the lime of commission of the alleged offence employed. in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government: 2 A482 No. 8347 of 2025 Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of Article section 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State. clause (b) will apply as if for the expression "State Government occurring therein, the expression "Central Government were substituted. Explanation- For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that no sanction shall be required in case of a public servant accused of any offence alleged to have been committed under section 166A, section 1668. section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 370, section 375, section 376. section 376A, section 376AB. section 376C. section 3760, section 3760A, section 37608 or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code. (2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union whole acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. (3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of Sub- Section (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that Sub-Section will apply as if for the expression "Central Government" occurring the expression "State Government" were substituted. therein, 3A. Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-Section (3), no Court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a State while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. 3B. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code or any other law, it is hereby declared that any sanction accorded by the State Government or any cognizance taken by a Court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of August, 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1991, receives the assent of the President, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in the State, shall be invalid and it shall be competent for the Central Government in such matter to accord sanction and for the Court to take cognizance thereon. (4) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may determine the person by whom, the manner in which, and the offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such Judge, Magistrate or public servant is to be conducted, and may specify the Court before which the trial is to be held." He further submits that once this fact was not taken into consideration, the 3 A482 No. 8347 of 2025 applicant moved an application before the trial court while raising grounds that the criminal prosecution cannot go on as there is no prosecution sanction, but the same was dismissed by the learned trial court while giving its finding that 'since the matter is old one, therefore, this issue will be dealt with at the subsequent stage.' He submitted that the non-bailable-warrant has also been issued. He submited that in fact, the issue is with respect to an amount of Rs.7,257.50 alleged to be misappropriated though, there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant. He added that the whole proceedings vitiates in the eyes of law and the learned trial court has proceeded, ignoring the provision of section 197 of Cr.P.C., thus, submission is that the order dated 02.09.2025 may be set aside. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid. Considering the submissions of counsel for the parties, it is apparent that admittedly the applicant is a public servant and allegation misappropriating the amount of Rs. 7,257.50 is against him. The application under section 197 of Cr.P.C. was moved before the trial which was dismissed only on the ground that 'the matter is old one, and cannot be decided at this stage.' This Court finds merit in the contentions of counsel for the applicant. Matter requires consideration. Let counter affidavit be filed by State, within period of two weeks. A week thereafter, is given to counsel for the applicant for filing rejoinder affidavit. List/put up this matter in the week commencing 17.11.2025. Till the next date of listing the criminal proceedings of Case no. 4426 of 2021 arising out of case crime no. 101 of 1994, u/s 420/467/468/409 of I.P.C., P.S. - Mailani, District Lakhimpur Kheri, shall remain stayed, so far as the present applicant is concerned. October 6, 2025 Mayank (Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

Instant application u/s 482 has been filed with the prayer to quash order dated 02-09-2025 passed in Case no. 4426 of 2021bearing case crime no. 101 of 1994, u/s 420/467/468/409 of I.P.C., P.S. - Mailani, District Lakhimpur Kheri and to stay the entire criminal proceedings pending against the applicant arising out of case crime no. 101 of 1994, u/s 420/467/468/409 I.P.C., P.S. - Mailani, District Lakhimpur Kheri. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a public servant and no criminal proceeding can go on ,unless the prosecution sanction is granted, as is mandated under section 197 of Cr.P.C. Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is quoted hereinunder:- "(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction- (a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed. in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government: (b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the lime of commission of the alleged offence employed. in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government: 2 A482 No. 8347 of 2025 Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of Article section 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State. clause (b) will apply as if for the expression "State Government occurring therein, the expression "Central Government were substituted. Explanation- For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that no sanction shall be required in case of a public servant accused of any offence alleged to have been committed under section 166A, section 1668. section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 370, section 375, section 376. section 376A, section 376AB. section 376C. section 3760, section 3760A, section 37608 or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code. (2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union whole acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. (3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of Sub- Section (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that Sub-Section will apply as if for the expression "Central Government" occurring the expression "State Government" were substituted. therein, 3A. Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-Section (3), no Court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a State while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. 3B. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code or any other law, it is hereby declared that any sanction accorded by the State Government or any cognizance taken by a Court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of August, 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1991, receives the assent of the President, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in the State, shall be invalid and it shall be competent for the Central Government in such matter to accord sanction and for the Court to take cognizance thereon. (4) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may determine the person by whom, the manner in which, and the offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such Judge, Magistrate or public servant is to be conducted, and may specify the Court before which the trial is to be held." He further submits that once this fact was not taken into consideration, the 3 A482 No. 8347 of 2025 applicant moved an application before the trial court while raising grounds that the criminal prosecution cannot go on as there is no prosecution sanction, but the same was dismissed by the learned trial court while giving its finding that 'since the matter is old one, therefore, this issue will be dealt with at the subsequent stage.' He submitted that the non-bailable-warrant has also been issued. He submited that in fact, the issue is with respect to an amount of Rs.7,257.50 alleged to be misappropriated though, there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant. He added that the whole proceedings vitiates in the eyes of law and the learned trial court has proceeded, ignoring the provision of section 197 of Cr.P.C., thus, submission is that the order dated 02.09.2025 may be set aside. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid. Considering the submissions of counsel for the parties, it is apparent that admittedly the applicant is a public servant and allegation misappropriating the amount of Rs. 7,257.50 is against him. The application under section 197 of Cr.P.C. was moved before the trial which was dismissed only on the ground that 'the matter is old one, and cannot be decided at this stage.' This Court finds merit in the contentions of counsel for the applicant. Matter requires consideration. Let counter affidavit be filed by State, within period of two weeks. A week thereafter, is given to counsel for the applicant for filing rejoinder affidavit. List/put up this matter in the week commencing 17.11.2025. Till the next date of listing the criminal proceedings of Case no. 4426 of 2021 arising out of case crime no. 101 of 1994, u/s 420/467/468/409 of I.P.C., P.S. - Mailani, District Lakhimpur Kheri, shall remain stayed, so far as the present applicant is concerned. October 6, 2025 Mayank (Shree Prakash Singh,J.)