Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Supreme Court said that there must be some nexus with the discharge of his official duties as Government officer, in order to attract the rigor of section 197CrPC.
Section197 CrPC deals with prosecuting of judges and public servants wherein sanction of the Government is stipulated for talking cognizance of an offence alleged to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his duties. The bench of Justice AM Sapre and Dinesh Maheswari held that, in order to attack the rigor of section 197 of the CrPC, it is necessary that the offence against a government officer must have some Nexus relation with the discharge of his official duties as a government officer.
The High Court of Patna quashed the order of the first class magistrate taking cognizance of the complaint filed by the appellant against the respondent, police officer (SHO) for the offences punishable under sections 323,341,379 and 504 of Indian Penal Code. It was quashed for two main reasons i.e. no sanction under section 197 CrPC was obtained by the prosecution for filing the complaint and on the finding that there are contradictions in the stamen of the complaint and the witness.
The bench found the grounds for quashing the complaint is not well founded and therefore not illegally sustained. It was further said that, having regard to the offences alleged in the complainant against the police officer, no prior sanction under section 198 CrPC was required since it can’t be said that the respondent committed the alleged offences while acting in discharge of his official duties, or while purporting to act in discharge of his official duties, opined the court. While allowing the appeal the court held that the High Court had no jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC to appreciate the statement of witnesses and to record the inconsistency in their Judgments.
86540
103860
630
114
59824