Section 197 CrPC sanction is mandatory for acts performed in official discharge of duty.

The petitioner, who retired on 31 October 2020 as Assistant Town Planner (Class-I) in the Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana, filed a criminal complaint against the then Director, Town and Country Planning, the District Town Planner (Enforcement), Gurugram, and the Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, Gurugram.

He alleged that Mange Ram Pilania had been appointed/promoted as Assistant Town Planner by relaxing the requisite experience conditions, despite the petitioner being more experienced and qualified. The petitioner further alleged that the accused had acted pursuant to a planned strategy and had received illegal remuneration from Mange Ram Pilania.

The Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram dismissed the complaint on 1 February 2025 on the ground that prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had not been obtained. The petitioner’s revision was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram on 30 April 2026.

The petitioner thereafter invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the High Court.

Whether prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was necessary before proceeding with the petitioner’s complaint against public servants in respect of the alleged appointment/promotion of Mange Ram Pilania.

Whether the petitioner’s reliance on allegations of forgery and fabrication rendered sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. unnecessary.

Whether the orders dismissing the complaint and the revision petition suffered from any illegality or irregularity.

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 as the provision invoked for challenging the subordinate courts’ orders, and Section 197 Cr.P.C., which requires prior governmental sanction for prosecuting a public servant where the alleged act was committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty.

The Court considered Shambhoo Nath Misra v. State of U.P., (1997) 5 SCC 326, and Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka and Another, (2024) 11 SCC 747, for the principle that sanction is unnecessary where the alleged offence is wholly unconnected with the public servant’s official duty.

The Court examined the complaint and found that it contained no specific allegation of forgery or fabrication; its substance was that the respondents had wrongly promoted or appointed Mange Ram Pilania despite the petitioner’s superior experience and qualifications.

The alleged promotion was an official administrative act performed by the respondents in their official capacity, rather than an act undertaken in their personal capacity. Consequently, the alleged conduct had a direct nexus with the discharge of official duty and attracted the requirement of prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.

The precedents relied upon by the petitioner did not assist him because they concerned acts unrelated to official duty, whereas the present complaint challenged an official promotion decision.

It found that the Judicial Magistrate had rightly dismissed the complaint and that the Additional Sessions Judge had rightly dismissed the revision petition. Finding no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders, the Court dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.