Supreme Court Allows Appeal of BIS Employee in Sexual Harassment Case Due to Lack of Sanction for Prosecution. Sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC is mandatory for public servants acting in official capacity; refusal of sanction by competent authority renders criminal proceedings invalid.

In Favour of Accused
  • 1585
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The present criminal appeal arises from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, which dismissed the appellant's petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking quashing of the chargesheet and summoning order. The appellant, an employee of the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), was deputed to the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and served as the Presiding Officer of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). The complainant, Dr. Manisha Narayan, had filed an FIR alleging sexual harassment by Dr. S.S. Ghonkrorkta and others. The appellant was not named in the FIR but was implicated later based on her statement under Section 164 CrPC, alleging that she filed a counter affidavit before the Central Administrative Tribunal without the complainant's consent and threatened her. The chargesheet was filed against the appellant and others for offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The appellant challenged the chargesheet and summoning order on the ground that no valid sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC was obtained from her employer, BIS. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the sanction was deemed to have been granted due to delay. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the chargesheet and summoning order against the appellant. The Court held that the appellant, being a public servant, was entitled to protection under Section 197 CrPC, and the acts alleged were in discharge of her official duties. The competent authority, BIS, had refused sanction for prosecution, and the prosecution's claim of deemed sanction was invalid as the sanction was not sought from the correct authority within the stipulated period. The Court emphasized that without valid sanction, the Magistrate could not take cognizance, and the proceedings were an abuse of process. The appeal was allowed, and the chargesheet and summoning order were quashed.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 197 CrPC - Mandatory Requirement - The appellant, a public servant, was charged with offences under IPC for acts allegedly done in discharge of official duties. The competent authority (BIS) refused sanction for prosecution. Held that without valid sanction, the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the offences, and the proceedings are liable to be quashed. (Paras 12-18)

B) Criminal Procedure - Deemed Sanction - Section 197 CrPC - Not Applicable - The prosecution claimed deemed sanction due to delay, but the sanction was not sought from the correct authority (BIS) within the stipulated period. Held that the concept of deemed sanction cannot be invoked when the sanction was not properly sought from the competent authority. (Paras 12-14)

C) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Chargesheet - Section 482 CrPC - Lack of Sanction - The High Court dismissed the petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of chargesheet and summoning order. Held that the High Court erred in not quashing the proceedings when the sanction for prosecution was refused by the competent authority, and the proceedings are an abuse of process of law. (Paras 9-10, 18)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings against the appellant, a public servant, can be sustained in the absence of a valid sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether the High Court erred in dismissing the petition for quashing of the chargesheet and summoning order.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court, and quashed the chargesheet No.01/2022 dated 02.07.2022 and summoning order dated 06.10.2022 against the appellant.

Law Points

  • Sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC is mandatory for public servants acting in discharge of official duties
  • Refusal of sanction by competent authority renders criminal proceedings invalid
  • Deemed sanction cannot be invoked when sanction was not sought from the correct authority within the stipulated time
  • High Court's refusal to quash chargesheet despite lack of sanction was erroneous
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (SC) (2) 257

Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1234/2023

2023-12-01

Nagarathna, J.

Ms. Rebecca John (Senior Counsel for appellant), Mr. Prashant Bhushan (for complainant)

SUNEETI TOTEJA

State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against High Court order dismissing petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of chargesheet and summoning order.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought quashing of chargesheet No.01/2022 dated 02.07.2022 and summoning order dated 06.10.2022 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.

Filing Reason

Appellant, a public servant, was arraigned as accused in a sexual harassment case without valid sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC.

Previous Decisions

High Court dismissed the petition under Section 482 CrPC, holding that sanction was deemed to have been granted due to delay.

Issues

Whether the criminal proceedings against the appellant can be sustained in the absence of a valid sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC? Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the petition for quashing of chargesheet and summoning order?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant: Sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC is mandatory; BIS refused sanction; proceedings are abuse of process. Respondent-State: Sanction was deemed due to delay; enough material to proceed; trial has commenced. Complainant: Supported the impugned order and sought dismissal of appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

For a public servant, sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC is a mandatory prerequisite before taking cognizance of offences alleged to have been committed in discharge of official duties. The refusal of sanction by the competent authority renders the criminal proceedings invalid and an abuse of process of law. The concept of deemed sanction cannot be invoked when the sanction was not properly sought from the correct authority within the stipulated period.

Judgment Excerpts

The appellant is a government servant who had acted in the course of her official duties and therefore, cognizance could not have been taken against the offences alleged against her in the absence of a valid sanction for prosecution granted by the concerned authority. BIS had categorically denied the sanction for prosecution of the appellant in the said case vide its letter dated 14.11.2022. Without valid sanction, the Magistrate could not take cognizance, and the proceedings are an abuse of process.

Procedural History

FIR No.610/2018 was filed on 30.10.2018. Chargesheet No.01/2022 was filed on 02.07.2022. Summoning order was passed on 06.10.2022. Appellant filed petition under Section 482 CrPC before High Court, which was dismissed on 16.11.2022. Appellant then filed the present criminal appeal before the Supreme Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 197, 482, 161, 164
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 354, 509, 120B, 192, 197, 204, 218, 202, 468, 471, 506, 354A
  • Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Suit for Specific Performance — Petitioners Failed to Prove Readiness and Willingness to Perform Contract.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute — Upholds Arbitral Awards Enhancing Compensation Under National Highways Act, 1956. The court held that the Arbitral Tribunal's determination of market value based on...