Fabrication Of Records Not Part Of Official Duty Of Public Servant: SC Restores Criminal Case Against Village Accountant
The Supreme Court set aside an order of the Karnataka High Court which quashed criminal complaint against an accountant for fabricating official records.
The Supreme Court addressed the question of whether a sanction is required to prosecute a public servant who was accused of creating fake documents by misusing his official position as a Village Accountant.
The accused had approached the Karnataka High Court by filing a petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the FIR against him. The High Court observed that the accused was a public servant. The Court acknowledged that the alleged offence occurred during the discharge of official duties and that the prosecution against him could not proceed due to the refusal of sanction to prosecute.
As a result, the FIR and chargesheet were quashed..
Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “Certainly, a view can be taken that manufacturing of such documents or fabrication of records cannot be a part of the official duty of a public servant. If that be the position, the High Court was not justified in quashing the complaint as well as the chargesheet in its entirety”
AOR Prakash Ranjan Nayak represented the appellant, while AOR D. L. Chidananda appeared for the respondents.
The Court explained that the object of sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC is to protect a public servant discharging official duties and functions from undue harassment by initiation of frivolous criminal proceedings.
In line with this, the Court stated that “this court has been consistent in holding that Section 197 Cr.PC does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission of a public servant while in service. It is restricted to only those acts or omissions which are done by public servants in the discharge of official duties.”
The Court set aside the order of the High Court and held that “the High Court had erred in quashing the complaint as well as the chargesheet in its entirety.”
Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Shadakshari v. State Of Karnataka & Anr. (2024 INSC 42)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Prakash Ranjan Nayak, Advocates C.B. Gururaj, Animesh Dubey, and T.G. Ravi
Respondents: AOR D. L. Chidananda and Rajivkumar, Advocates Rahul Kaushik, Anil C Nishani, V Murnal, and Krishna M Singh
