Bank Employees May Be ‘Public Servants’ U/S.21 RPC; But Can’t Invoke Section 197 CrPC As Shield Against Prosecution: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
The bank employees had approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the proceedings whereby the Trial Court had issued process against them.
While setting aside an order directing issuance of process against the bank employees, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that the employees may fall within the definition of “public servants” as contemplated under Section 21 of the RPC (Ranbir Penal Code). Explaining that Section 197 of the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) extends protection only to those who are not removable from office except by or with the sanction of the Government, the High Court held that the bank employees cannot invoke Section 197 as a shield against prosecution.
The petitioners approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the proceedings whereby the Trial Court had issued process against them for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 420 RPC.
The Single Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal held, “While the petitioners may fall within the definition of “public servants” as contemplated under Section 21 of the RPC, Section 197 of the CrPC specifically extends protection only to those who are not removable from office except by or with the sanction of the Government. Consequently, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners, as bank employees, cannot invoke Section 197 as a shield against prosecution for the aforementioned offences. This contention raised in this regard is, therefore, rejected.”
Advocate Ajay K. Gandotra represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Waqar Hussain Shah represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The respondent filed a complaint asserting that the first petitioner, acting on the instructions of the second petitioner, took ₹2.5 lakh from him on the promise of providing employment. The respondent claimed that his subsequent requests for the job were met with threats. He further alleged that, after being called to the J&K Bank Branch, he was subjected to abusive language by both petitioners. On the basis of preliminary evidence, the trial court proceeded to issue process against the petitioners for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 504, and 506 of the RPC.
Arguments
The primary contention raised by the petitioners was that the criminal proceedings were not maintainable in the absence of prior sanction as mandated under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. It was contended that the petitioners, being public servants, were entitled to the protection afforded under the said provision.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the Magistrate chose to take cognizance under Section 190 CrPC rather than directing an investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.PC. “While the choice of procedure is within the court's discretion, the substance of the complaint is fatally vague”, it added.
The Bench found that the respondent relied solely on a bald allegation that a payment of ₹2.5 lakh was made 'two months ago,' yet he failed to specify the exact date, time, or venue. Furthermore, the assertion that the first petitioner received the amount at the instance of the second petitioner was entirely unsubstantiated, as the respondent failed to disclose any basis or source of knowledge for this assertion. “Such bald and unsupported assertions do not disclose any prima facie material, particularly against petitioner No. 2. In view of these material omissions, the issuance of process against the petitioners, who are bank officials, appears to be unwarranted and premature”, it held.
Holding that the Trial court issued process against the petitioners in a perfunctory manner, the Bench mentioned, “In cases involving public officials and vague accusations, a Magistrate must exercise caution and circumspection. In the present case, the learned Trial Court failed to address and clarify the material ambiguities in the narrative put forth by the complainant and proceeded to issue process without undertaking the necessary scrutiny to test the veracity of the allegations.”
The Bench set aside the impugned order but clarified that the proceedings in the complaint would not be quashed at this stage. The Bench allowed a proper reevaluation of the matter by remitting the matter to the trial court for passing fresh orders.
Cause Title: Jasmeet Singh v. Shafi Ahmed (Case No.: CRMC No. 1/2019)