In Muniya Devi v. State of Haryana (CRM-M-44680-2021, decided on 08.12.2023), the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed a criminal complaint filed under Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. against a serving Sub-Inspector of Haryana Police on the ground that prior sanction of the State Government under Section 197 Cr.P.C. had not been obtained before filing the complaint or taking cognizance. The Court held that since the petitioner’s act of filing a reply in bail proceedings was reasonably connected with her official duties, the Haryana Government’s notification dated 25.07.1980 extending the protection of Section 197(2) to all serving police officials squarely applied.
Facts
Irshad son of Khalil and Sahina wife of Irshad were accused in FIR No.07 dated 19.01.2016 registered at Women Police Station, Nuh under Sections 365 and 376-D of the IPC. Both were declared proclaimed offenders vide order dated 17.05.2017. They applied for anticipatory bail on 16.11.2017 before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh, concealing their proclaimed offender status. That application was dismissed on 05.12.2017. They filed a second anticipatory bail application on 11.01.2018, again concealing the same fact.
During the proceedings on the second bail application, the petitioner, Muniya Devi, who was then posted as SHO, Women Police Station, Nuh, filed a reply on behalf of the police. In that reply, she too did not disclose the fact that Irshad and Sahina had been declared proclaimed offenders. The Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Exclusive Court) (Crime Against Women), Nuh, vide a detailed order dated 17.01.2018 (Annexure P-1), dismissed the bail petition and directed proceedings under Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. against all three, including the petitioner, for offences under Sections 176, 177, 181, 191, 192 and 193 of the IPC. Complaint was accordingly filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nuh, who ordered issuance of notice on 19.01.2018 (Annexure P-2).
The petitioner sought quashing of the complaint and all subsequent proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The Court’s Findings
The petitioner’s principal contention was that no sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. had been obtained from the State Government before filing the complaint. The State countered that since the complaint was filed by the Court itself under Section 195(1)(a), no sanction was required.
The Court examined Section 197(2) and (3) Cr.P.C. and noted that the Haryana Government, vide notification dated 25.07.1980 bearing No.41/20/79HGI, had extended the benefit of Section 197(2) to all serving police officials of the Haryana Police force charged with the maintenance of public order. The Court relied on three precedents in arriving at its conclusion.
In Vijay Kumar v. State of Haryana (CRR-1274-2015, decided on 19.03.2018), this Court had held, following the earlier Division Bench decision in ASI Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab, 1993 (1) RCR (Criminal) 315, that on a plain reading of the notification, the sanction for prosecution of serving police officials must come from the State Government and not from any subordinate appointing authority. In D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain, (2020) 7 SCC 695, the Supreme Court laid down that the test for applicability of Section 197 is whether the act alleged against the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of official duty; if so, cognizance cannot be taken without sanction, even if the officer exceeded the scope of his powers. In Moti Lal Banerjee v. State of Haryana, 1985(2) RCR (Criminal) 570, this Court had held that the grant of sanction is a solemn and sacrosanct act affording protection to government servants against frivolous prosecution, and must be strictly complied with.
Applying these principles, the Court observed that even assuming the petitioner had deliberately or negligently omitted the proclaimed offender status of the accused in her reply, the reply had been filed by her while discharging her duties as SHO. The act thus had a clear reasonable connection with her official duties, and sanction from the Government of Haryana under Section 197(3) read with the notification dated 25.07.1980 was a mandatory prerequisite.
Result
The Court held that in the absence of the requisite State Government sanction, cognizance could not have been taken by the Magistrate. The complaint (Annexure P-1), the summoning order dated 19.01.2018 (Annexure P-2), and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were quashed qua the petitioner.
Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate, appeared for the Petitioner, i.e., Smt. Muniya Devi.