S. 197 CrPC Does Not Envisage Concept Of ‘Deemed Sanction’- Supreme Court Quashes Case Against Public Servant
The Court allowed a Criminal Appeal of an accused public servant against the Allahabad High Court's Order which dismissed her Petition seeking to quash a Summoning Order.
The Supreme Court while quashing a case against a public servant, observed that Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) does not envisage the concept of ‘deemed sanction’.
The Court observed thus in a Criminal Appeal filed by an accused public servant against the Order of the Allahabad High Court which dismissed her Petition seeking to quash a Summoning Order.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma elucidated, “The argument advanced by the respondent-State and the complainant with respect to “deemed sanction” is also not tenable. Section 197 of CrPC does not envisage a concept of deemed sanction. The chargesheet, as well as the counter affidavit of the respondent-State, have relied upon the judgment of this Court in Vineet Narain to contend that lack of grant of sanction by the concerned authority within relevant time would amount to deemed sanction for prosecution. However, a perusal of the said judgment reveals that it did not deal with Section 197 CrPC and rather it dealt with the investigation powers and procedures of Central Bureau of Investigation and Central Vigilance Commission.”
The Bench said that the correctness of the allegations regarding the conduct of the accused need not be ascertained by the Court but the fact that she was acting in her official duty is sufficient to hold that a prior sanction from the department was in fact necessary before the Magistrate taking cognizance against her.
Senior Advocate Rebecca John appeared on behalf of the Appellant/Accused while AORs Shaurya Sahay and Prashant Bhushan appeared on behalf of the Respondents (State and Complainant respectively).
Brief Facts
The Appellant was an employee of the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). The Complainant who was an Associate Director, had alleged sexual harassment by the Enforcement Director during her tenure at the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). A Complaint was filed before the FSSAI for action to be taken under the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). An Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) was constituted to investigate the Complainant’s allegations and it found the said man guilty. It was recommended that an FIR be registered against him for the offences under Sections 354, 509, 192, 197, 204, 218, 202, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). However, the FSSAI did not take any action against the persons involved in the offence and misconduct.
Resultantly, the Complainant filed an FIR and during the investigation, she asserted that the Appellant had filed a counter affidavit on her behalf without consent during the proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). She alleged that she was transferred from Delhi to Chennai and when she gave a representation to cancel her transfer, the Appellant threatened her by saying that if she does not want to go to Chennai, then she can take a study leave and quit the place, or else, she would be harassed. The Appellant was also allegedly involved in threatening and pressurising the Complainant to withdraw the case. A chargesheet was filed against the Appellant, and the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the same. The Appellant's Petition to quash the chargesheet was dismissed by the High Court, which, however, granted bail and reserved liberty to approach the Magistrate. Hence, the Appellant was before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, noted, “The Magistrate therefore erred in proceeding to take cognizance against the appellant without the sanction for prosecution being received from BIS, and since BIS has eventually refused to grant sanction for the prosecution of the appellant, the prosecution against the appellant could not have been sustained.”
The Court said that the Magistrate was not right in taking cognizance of the offence against the Appellant without there being a sanction for prosecution granted by the competent authority.
“Further, the High Court erred in not considering the fact that the sanction for prosecution was not granted by the competent authority under Section 197 of the CrPC and eventually the sanction was expressly denied by the competent authority with respect to the allegations against the appellant”, it added.
The Court concluded that the necessary sanction not having been granted has vitiated the very initiation of the criminal proceeding against the Appellant.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal and quashed the chargesheet and Summoning Order against the accused.
Cause Title- Suneeti Toteja v. State of U.P. & Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 267)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Rebecca John, AOR Meenakshi Kalra, Advocates Shobhana Takiar, S N Kalra, Gade Meghana, Anjali Chaudhary, Sakshi Gupta, Shubham, and Kamal.
Respondents: AORs Shaurya Sahay, Prashant Bhushan, Advocates Aditya Kumar, Ruchil Raj, Vikas Bansal, Alice Raj, and Suroor Mandar.
