Mere Excess Or Overreach In Performance Of Official Duty Doesn’t Disentitle Public Servant From Statutory Protection: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a mere excess or overreach in the performance of official duty does not, by itself, disentitle a public servant from the statutory protection mandated by law.

The Court observed thus in a Criminal Appeal filed against the Order of the Karnataka High Court which refused to quash the Order of the Sessions Judge affirming the Summoning Order of the Magistrate against the accused persons under Sections 326, 358, 500, 501, 502, 506 (b) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held, “In the present case, it is evident that the actions attributed to the accused persons emanate from the discharge of their official duties, specifically in connection with the investigation of criminal cases pending against the complainant. As previously observed, a mere excess or overreach in the performance of official duty does not, by itself, disentitle a public servant from the statutory protection mandated by law. The safeguard of obtaining prior sanction from the competent authority, as envisaged under Section 197 of the CrPC and Section 170 of the Police Act cannot be rendered nugatory merely because the acts alleged may have exceeded the strict bounds of official duty.”

The Bench said that any action undertaken by a public officer, even if in excess of the authority vested in them or overstepping the confines of their official duty, would nonetheless attract statutory protection, provided there exists a reasonable nexus between the act complained of and the officer’s official functions.

Senior Advocate Rahul Kaushik appeared for the Appellants while AOR Karunakar Mahalik appeared for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The Complainant i.e., the Respondent was prosecuting certain police officers for their illegal activities. He alleged that some police officers had engaged the accused persons (Appellants) who were also police officers, to take revenge against him. He further alleged that the accused persons lodged false complaints against him and registered fabricated cases. They also allegedly threatened him with dire consequences. It was further alleged that they trespassed into his house, dragged him out, forcibly took him to the police station where they assaulted him after stripping him of his clothes and continued to torture him throughout the night. Thereafter, they allegedly procured a slate, forced the Complainant to hold it with his name written on it and took his photograph. He was then produced before the Magistrate and when he showed his injuries, he was referred to a hospital. He was later released and eventually acquitted. However, one night the accused persons stopped him while he was riding his scooter, slapped him, and took him to the police station.

Over there, his belongings were taken such as gold chain, wristwatch, purse, spectacles, cash, etc. He was again allegedly assaulted and then produced before the Magistrate. Subsequently, another accused who was the daughter of the proprietor of Bruna Weekly Magazine published the illegally taken photographs of the Complainant along with defamatory slogans and also filed a case against him. Resultantly, the Complainant approached the Magistrate and prayed for taking cognizance. The cognizance was taken and summons was issued to the accused persons. Being aggrieved, the accused (proprietor’s daughter) approached the High Court, which set aside the Order insofar as she was concerned and remanded the matter. The charges against the said accused were dropped but summons was issued to the other accused persons, who went to the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge dismissed their Criminal Revision Petition, who then went to the High Court. As the decision was not in their favour, they moved to the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in the above regard, reiterated, “This Court, while adjudicating on instances of alleged police excess, has consistently held in Virupaxappa and D. Devaraja, that where a police officer, in the course of performing official duties, exceeds the bounds of such duty, the protective shield under the relevant statutory provisions continues to apply, provided there exists a reasonable nexus between the impugned act and the discharge of official functions.”

The Court added that transgression or overstepping of authority does not, by itself, suffice to displace the statutory safeguard of requiring prior government sanction before prosecuting the public servant concerned.

“… we are of the considered opinion that the learned VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate erred in taking cognisance of the alleged offences against the accused persons without the requisite sanction for prosecution in the instant case. The absence of the necessary sanction vitiates the very initiation of criminal proceedings against the accused persons”, it further noted.

The Court also took note of the fact that the alleged incident pertains to the period of 1999-2000; accused Nos. 1, 3, and 4 have since passed away; the proceedings now survive solely against accused Nos. 2 and 5; both accused No.2 and accused No.5 retired from service long ago on attaining the age of superannuation; accused No.2 superannuated in the year 2015 and is presently 71 years of age, while accused No.5 retired in the year 2020 and is now 64 years old.

“In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that no meaningful purpose would be served by prolonging the criminal prosecution against them. Accordingly, we are satisfied that the ends of justice would be adequately met in the instant case by quashing the proceedings against accused Nos.2 and 5”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the High Court’s Order, and quashed the proceedings against the accused persons.

Cause Title- G.C. Manjunath & Others v. Seetaram (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 439)

Appearance:

Appellants: Senior Advocate Rahul Kaushik, AOR T. R. B. Sivakumar, Advocates Anil C Nishani, Jayaramu H L, Meenesh Dubey, Krishna M Singh, Jyoti Mishra, Vishwesh Murnal, Gaurav Chavan, and Jayaramu H.L.

Respondent: AOR Karunakar Mahalik, Advocates Rohan Thwani, Aakriti, Saloni Sharan, and Sarbendra Kumar.

Click here to read/download the Judgment