Sanction U/S 197 CrPC Not Required To Register An FIR Against Police Officials: Supreme Court
The Bench noted that obtaining sanction at the FIR registration stage is “alien to the scheme” of CrPC and BNS and held that Priyanka Srivastava safeguards cannot be applied as mere procedural formality divorced from facts of the case.
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that the requirement of prior sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC, protecting public servants from prosecution for acts done in discharge of official duty, operates only at the stage of taking cognizance and has no application at the pre-cognizance stage of directing registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. The Court held the concept of insisting upon sanction at the FIR-registration stage to be "alien to the scheme" of both CrPC and BNSS.
The Court further held that the safeguards laid down in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 6 SCC 287, requiring a complainant to first approach police authorities before invoking a Magistrate's powers under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, must be applied purposively and in light of the mischief they seek to curb, and cannot be mechanically applied as a procedural formality where a complainant has, in substance, pursued the police machinery at multiple levels without result.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, which confers a protective umbrella upon public servants who are alleged to have committed an offence during the discharge of their official duties, makes it clear that the requirement of sanction comes into operation only when the Court is to proceed to take cognizance of the offence. The concept of obtaining sanction under Section 197 CrPC at the stage of registration of an FIR is alien to the scheme of CrPC or BNSS. An order under Section 156(3) CrPC directing registration of an FIR and investigation is a pre-cognizance step and does not amount to taking cognizance of the offence. Consequently, where the Magistrate has, by exercising powers under Section 156(3) CrPC, directed registration of an FIR and to conduct investigation, the absence or otherwise of previous sanction under Section 197 CrPC cannot operate as a bar to such registration and investigation…”.
Senior Advocate Nikhil Goel appeared for the appellant and Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal appeared for the respondents.
The appellant had alleged that he was illegally detained and coerced by police officials, acting in collusion with business associates with whom he had commercial disputes, into signing documents relinquishing his shareholding, and that his digital devices were tampered with during custody. After repeated complaints to local police and subsequently to the Director General of Police went unaddressed, he filed a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who directed registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) of the CrPC.
The respondents sought quashing of the FIR before the High Court, which allowed their petitions, holding that prosecution of the police officials required prior sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC and that the complainant had bypassed the procedural safeguards mandated in Priyanka Srivastava.
The Supreme Court, relying on its earlier rulings in State of Karnataka v. Pastor P. Raju and Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, held that an order under Section 156(3) CrPC is a pre-cognizance step and does not amount to taking cognizance, and that sanction becomes relevant only when a court proceeds to take cognizance under Section 190 CrPC. On the second ground, the Court found that the appellant had, in substance, approached police authorities at multiple levels before moving the Magistrate, and that insisting on a further representation to the Superintendent of Police as a matter of form would elevate procedure above the safeguard's underlying purpose.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment, allowed the appeals, and directed that the closed final report be reopened and investigation resumed from the stage at which it was submitted, while leaving it to the investigating officer to consider seeking sanction if the allegations are found to implicate acts done in discharge of official duty.
Cause Title: Anumandala Rajesh Reddy v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1039)
Appearances:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Nikhil Goel.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal.