No prior sanction needed to prosecute public servant under BNS Section 199, Punjab & Haryana High Court rules

A truck bearing registration No. CH01-TB-5008, involved in an accident in which its driver died, was seized during investigation of FIR No. 47 dated 02.04.2024 registered at Police Station Bond Kalan. The stone slates loaded in the truck were released pursuant to a court order, but a subsequent order directing release of the truck bore only “Sd/-” and lacked the Presiding Officer’s signature.

During consideration of the untraced report in the accident case, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Charkhi Dadri, was informed that the truck had allegedly been released illegally without a valid court order. The Magistrate directed registration of appropriate proceedings, leading to FIR No. 238 dated 18.09.2024 at Police Station City Dadri concerning the alleged fabrication of a judicial order.

The investigation was monitored by the Court, but the Investigating Officer, ASI Kuldeep, allegedly failed to make effective progress despite repeated directions and opportunities. On 02.07.2025, the Judicial Magistrate submitted a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate alleging offences under Sections 198, 199(b) and 210 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The complaint was made over to another Judicial Magistrate, who summoned the petitioner on 29.08.2025. The petitioner invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) seeking quashing of the complaint and summoning order.

1. Whether previous sanction under Section 218 of the BNSS was required before taking cognizance against the petitioner, a public servant, for acts allegedly committed while discharging his official duties.

2. Whether the Judicial Magistrate who took cognizance lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

3. Whether the allegations in the complaint disclosed a prima facie case under Sections 198, 199(b) and 210 of the BNS, warranting issuance of summons, or whether the proceedings were liable to be quashed under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

The Court applied Section 218 of the BNSS, which generally bars cognizance of an offence allegedly committed by a protected public servant in the discharge of official duty without prior sanction; however, its proviso expressly excludes the requirement of sanction for offences under, inter alia, Section 199 of the BNS.

The Court distinguished Suneeti Toteja v. State of U.P. and G.C. Manjunath v. Seetaram, which concerned the protection available to public servants under the sanction provisions of the CrPC.

On territorial jurisdiction, the Court held that Judicial Magistrates in the district possessed jurisdiction in accordance with the applicable notification.

For quashing, the Court relied on Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. State of Karnataka, M/s Balaji Traders v. State of U.P. and Muskan v. Ishaan Khan, reiterating that quashing is an exceptional remedy, allegations must ordinarily be taken at face value, and the Court should not conduct a mini-trial or assess the reliability of evidence at the initial stage.

The Court held that the sanction objection was unavailable because the prosecution included Section 199 of the BNS, for which the proviso to Section 218 of the BNSS expressly dispenses with prior sanction.

The reliance on Suneeti Toteja and G.C. Manjunath was therefore misplaced. The jurisdictional objection also failed because the complaint had been submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and made over to another Magistrate having district-wide territorial jurisdiction under the applicable notification.

As to the merits, the complaint alleged prolonged inaction by the petitioner in investigating serious allegations concerning fabrication of a court order and illegal release of a seized vehicle, despite repeated judicial directions and opportunities.

Whether the petitioner had acted bona fide, diligently, or in accordance with his statutory duties was a matter for trial and could not be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. Since the allegations, if accepted at face value, disclosed a prima facie case and did not fall within the recognised categories for quashing, no exceptional ground for interference was made out.

The petition under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking quashing of Complaint No. COMI-45-2025 and the summoning order dated 29.08.2025 was dismissed.

The Court clarified that its observations would not prejudice the petitioner’s defence on factual issues at trial.