Prior Section 197 sanction is mandatory for prosecution over acts reasonably connected to official duties.

The petitioner, then Anchal Adhikari, Keoti, was accused of facilitating the issuance of a rent receipt to Bibi Kaniz Fatima by allegedly suppressing the pendency of a title appeal and using false or forged documents

He maintained that he acted in his official capacity after subordinate revenue officials made inquiries and in light of a civil court judgment and decree

The Magistrate rejected his discharge petition under Section 239 CrPC on 30 January 2019 and framed charges on 22 June 2019; the petitioner sought quashing of both orders under Section 482 CrPC

The petitioner was a public servant, and no prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC had been obtained

1. Whether prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC was required before cognizance of the allegations against the petitioner, given their connection to his official duties.

2. Whether the material on record justified continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

Section 197 CrPC requires previous sanction before a court takes cognizance of an offence alleged against a qualifying public servant where the act complained of has a reasonable connection with the discharge, or purported discharge, of official duty.

The protection does not place public servants above the law, but applies where the required official-duty nexus exists. The Court relied on S.K. Zutshi v. Bimal Debnath, (2004) 8 SCC 31, and State of Orissa v. Ganesh Chandra Jew, (2004) 8 SCC 40, for the scope and purpose of Section 197 CrPC.

The Court found that the allegations arose from an order the petitioner passed as Anchal Adhikari concerning issuance of a rent receipt, after inquiry and recommendation by subordinate revenue officials and consideration of a civil court judgment and decree.

The alleged acts therefore had a reasonable connection with his official duties, making prior sanction necessary; none had been obtained.

The Court also noted the absence of specific material showing dishonest intent or personal fabrication of documents, and held that the Magistrate had not adequately considered the sanction requirement or the nature of the alleged official acts.

It quashed the orders dated 30 January 2019 and 22 June 2019, together with all consequential proceedings against him, and allowed the petition.