SC Quashes prosecution charges on public servants in alleged forgery case
Title: SHADAKSHARI v STATE OF KARNATAKA
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.256 OF 2024
Dated on: 17.1.2004
Corum: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
Facts of the case
Shadakshari, the appellant, filed a complaint alleging that Mallikarjuna (defendant No. 2) and that respondent No.2 and another were irregularly creating documents of property in the name of dead person despite knowing the fact that those were fake documents, such as, death certificate, family tree of the original successor of land of the appellant etc. for illegal gain. The said first information was received and registered by Haleebedu Police Station, Belur an additional party had illegally created fictitious property papers, such as family trees for their own personal benefit. The Haleebedu Police Station in Belur filed the complaint, citing many provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In Criminal Appeal No. the Supreme Court of India handed down a major ruling concerning Shadakshari, the appellant, and the State of Karnataka & Another. The issue concerns the quashing of a chargesheet and complaint that Shadakshari filed against Mallikarjuna, a Karnataka village accountant, alleging irregularities in the creation of false property papers.
Legal Provision
Respondent No.2 filed a petition under Section 482 Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is a provision that empowers the High Court to quash any criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR if it finds that it is an abuse of the process of law or that the ends of justice require it. It is a discretionary power that has to be exercised with caution and care by the High Court. High Court, in its initial order dated 05.01.2018, acknowledged the serious allegations against respondent No.2 but refrained from interference, citing the need for a proper investigation. Subsequently, a chargesheet was filed, leading respondent No.2 to approach the High Court again.
Issue
The main point of contention in this legal dispute is whether Section 197 Cr.PC. sanction is required in order to prosecute a public worker who is alleged to have committed crimes while performing official responsibilities. But the Respondent No. 2, a village accountant, requested immunity from prosecution, arguing that criminal proceedings are barred by the competent authority’s denial of sanction.
Court analysis and judgement
The Supreme Court examined the interpretation of Section 197 Cr. PC, stressing that the acts covered by it are only those carried out in the course of carrying out official responsibilities. Citing prior decisions, the court made it clear that Section 197 does not protect every action or inaction by a public worker, highlighting the requirement for a plausible link between the claimed behaviour and official duty and based only on the refusal of sanction, the court found that the High Court erred in quashing the complaint and chargesheet. It remitted the case for trial, ruling that the creation of false papers might not be regarded as an official obligation. The ruling makes it clear that a public worker is not always immune from prosecution just because they choose not to accept a reprimand and allowed the said appeal and ordered for the HC order to be set aside.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Namitha Ramesh