Prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC is mandatory before prosecuting retired public servants for acts linked to official duty.

The petitioner, a retired Junior Engineer of Nagar Parishad, Sasaram, challenged the order dated 17 August 2021 by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram, took cognizance of offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 71, 477A and 120B IPC.

The prosecution arose from an enquiry into seven departmental projects in Ward No. 11, allegedly revealing that works shown as having been executed earlier were recorded in the measurement books as completed during 2019–20, suggesting misappropriation of Government funds.

The petitioner contended that he had retired on 31 December 2019, that the relevant measurement books had been prepared by the previous Junior Engineer, Mahant Pandey, and that he had signed five books only upon the direction of the Executive Officer.

An earlier FIR, Sasaram Town P.S. Case No. 35 of 2021, had been registered on 11 January 2021 concerning the same seven projects and allegations of misappropriation and forgery; investigation in that case remained pending.

The present FIR, Sasaram Town P.S. Case No. 156 of 2021, was lodged on 1 March 2021 by the Executive Officer and additionally implicated the informant of the earlier FIR as an accused.

The petitioner also argued that prosecution was barred for want of prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC. Similar proceedings against co-accused persons had been quashed by the High Court on the ground of absence of sanction.

Whether Sasaram Town P.S. Case No. 156 of 2021 constituted an impermissible second FIR concerning the same occurrence and transaction already investigated in Sasaram Town P.S. Case No. 35 of 2021.

Whether prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC was mandatory before taking cognizance of the IPC offences against the petitioner, a public servant who had subsequently retired, where the alleged acts had a reasonable nexus with the discharge of his official duties.

Whether, in the absence of such sanction, the order taking cognizance and the ensuing prosecution were liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

The Court applied the rule that, under the scheme of Sections 154, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 CrPC, there can ordinarily be no second FIR or fresh investigation regarding the same cognizable offence, occurrence or transaction; subsequent information must be incorporated through further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC, as held in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, and Ambitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI, 2013 SCC OnLine SC 310.

Section 197 CrPC bars cognizance of an offence allegedly committed by a public servant while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty without prior sanction of the competent Government; the protection extends to retired public servants, as held in Kalicharan Mahapatra v. State of Orissa, (1998) 6 SCC 411, and State by DSP v. B.T. Ramesh, 2025 INSC 840.

The relevant test is whether there is a reasonable connection or nexus between the alleged act and official duty, even if the act was in excess of duty; however, official duty cannot be used as a cloak for illicit acts, as explained in A. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Rakesh Sharma, (2023) 8 SCC 711, D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain, (2020) 7 SCC 695, and Gurmeet Kaur v. Devender Gupta, (2025) 5 SCC 481.

The Court found that both FIRs concerned the alleged embezzlement of funds in the same seven projects and substantially involved the same offences and factual transaction.

The identity of the informant and the subsequent inclusion of the earlier informant as an accused did not alter the substance of the occurrence; any additional allegations could have been investigated in the first case rather than forming the basis of a separate FIR.

Independently, the allegations related to the petitioner’s preparation or signing of measurement books in his capacity as Junior Engineer, thereby establishing a direct and reasonable nexus with his official functions.

Since the petitioner had retired, the protection under Section 197 CrPC nevertheless continued to apply. No prior sanction had been obtained before cognizance was taken, making the cognizance order legally unsustainable.

The Court also considered that proceedings against similarly situated co-accused had already been quashed on the same sanction ground.

It consequently quashed the order dated 17 August 2021 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram, in Sasaram Town P.S. Case No. 156 of 2021, insofar as it related to Arun Kumar Singh, and allowed the application under Section 482 CrPC.