Court Affirms Limited Scope of Judicial Review Under Section 197 CrPC, Protecting Public Servants from Vexatious Prosecution
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the denial of prosecution sanction against certain police officials, emphasizing the protective scope of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The court, presided over by Justice Amit Mahajan, upheld the decision of the Home Department of the Government of NCT of Delhi, which refused to grant sanction for prosecution against police officials accused of misconduct in a case involving harassment and false implications.
The petitioner, Triveni, sought prosecution sanction against ASI Satvir Singh, W/Ct. Poonam, and Inspector Pankaj Malik, alleging misuse of official position in connection with an FIR registered against her husband, which ultimately led to his acquittal. The petitioner claimed that the police officials were in collusion with an illegal occupant of her property and had falsely implicated her husband.
The court reviewed the application for prosecution sanction and the subsequent decision by the competent authority, which found no cogent material to justify prosecution. The judgment underscored that the decision to grant or refuse sanction lies within the exclusive domain of the competent authority and is intended to protect public servants from frivolous or vexatious prosecution.
Justice Mahajan highlighted that Section 197 CrPC provides a necessary shield for public servants, allowing them to perform their official duties without fear of undue litigation. The court noted that judicial review in such matters is confined to assessing whether relevant material was considered and whether due application of mind was evident in the authority's decision-making process.
The judgment reaffirmed precedents set by the Supreme Court, which assert that a sanction is not merely a formality but a crucial safeguard. It emphasized that the competent authority's satisfaction, based on the material presented, is essential for the validity of a sanction order.
The court also pointed out that the allegations raised by the petitioner related to events over a decade old and had already been adjudicated in criminal proceedings. It concluded that the petitioner's claims lacked material evidence to demonstrate arbitrariness or non-application of mind in the authority's decision, warranting no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The ruling reinforces the limited scope of judicial intervention in administrative decisions concerning prosecution sanctions, highlighting the importance of protecting public servants from retaliatory legal actions while maintaining accountability.
Bottom Line:
Section 197 of CrPC provides protection to public servants from vexatious or frivolous prosecution for acts done in the discharge of official duties. The competent authority's decision to grant or refuse prosecution sanction under Section 197 CrPC lies within its exclusive domain, and judicial review in such matters is limited to assessing whether relevant material was placed before the authority and whether due application of mind was exercised.
Statutory provision(s): Section 197 of CrPC, Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Triveni v. Home Department Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2828435
