Haryana police officers cannot be prosecuted without State sanction: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently set aside a criminal case initiated on the orders of a trial court judge against a Haryana police officer, for allegedly submitting false information before the court, on finding that no sanction was obtained from the Haryana government before initiating such a case [Muniya Devi V/S State of Haryana]..Justice Deepak Gupta pointed out that the police officer could not have been prosecuted without prior sanction under Section 197 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) from the Haryana government. .Section 197 of the CrPC is meant to safeguard certain categories of government servants from frivolous prosecution for actions done in the course of their official duties. It says that prior government approval or sanction should be obtained before a case is filed against a government servant for anything done in the course of official duties. Pertinently, this protection was specifically extended to officers of the Haryana police by a 1980 State government notification. ."The act of the petitioner (police officer) had a clear reasonable connection with her official duties. In these circumstances, sanction under Section 197(3) Cr.P.C. from the Government of Haryana was necessary to be obtained in view of the notification dated 25.07.1980 of Haryana Government," the Court held, in this case..The High Court was hearing a plea by a female police officer, Muniya Devi. In 2018, Devi failed to inform a trial court that two persons accused in a kidnapping and gangrape case had earlier been declared "proclaimed offenders." This omission was noticed by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Nuh while dismissing a second bail plea moved by the two accused. .For this lapse, the ASJ ordered the initiation of a criminal case for the offences under Section 176 (omission to give notice or information to public servant by person legally bound to give it), 177 (furnishing false information), 181 (false statement on oath or affirmation), 191 (false information), 192 (fabricating false evidence) and 193 (punishment for false evidence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).Pertinently, the case was ordered to be filed not only against the accused bail applicants, but also against Muniya Devi. The said case was initiated by the ASJ citing Section 195 of the CrPC, which deals with the prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.A Chief Judicial Magistrate later summoned Devi in the said case, leading the police officer to move the High Court for relief. .Devi's counsel submitted that she was a member of the Haryana Police service who was serving as a Sub-Inspector at the time. As such, government sanction ought to have been taken before a criminal case could be filed against her, the lawyer argued. No such sanction was taken. As such, no court could take cognizance of the case against the police officer, it was argued. .The prosecution, however, submitted that since the complaint was filed by the Court, no sanction under Section 197, CrPC was required..The High Court rejected the State's stance and held that prior government sanction was necessary to prosecute the police officer, particularly since her alleged actions were carried out in the course of her official duties. "Even if it be assumed that petitioner by filing reply to bail petition of Irshad and Sahina (bail applicants), deliberately or negligently, did not mention the fact about these accused having been earlier declared as proclaimed offender, the reply had been filed by the petitioner while discharging her duties as a public servant," the Court said. .Since no sanction was obtained before filing the complaint, the magistrate could not have taken cognisance of the case or summoned the police officer, the High Court held. .Accordingly, the complaint filed and all subsequent criminal proceedings against the police officer were quashed by the High Court in an order passed on December 8, 2023..Advocate Vaibhav Sharma appeared for the petitioner (police officer). Additional Advocate General Randhir Singh appeared for the Haryana government..[Read Order]