Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandeep Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 October, 2025
1
M.Cr.C.No.37550/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
ON 6TH OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE NO.37550/2025
SANDEEP YADAV
VS.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Petitioner by - Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate with Shri
Ashley John Mathew, Advocate.
Respondent/State by - Shri Amit Sharma, Government Advocate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 16.09.2025
Delivered on : 06.10.2025
ORDER
Heard finally.
2. This petition under Section 482 of CrPC (Section 528 of
BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner/accused being aggrieved by the
order dated 27.06.2025 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge,
Sagar, in Criminal Revision No.68/2025 and the order dated 22.02.2025
passed by learned JMFC, Sagar in RCT No.2381/2019.
3. Learned JMFC vide order dated 22.02.2025 dismissed the
application filed by the petitioner under Section 197 of CrPC, which was
challenged in revision under Section 397 of CrPC (438 of BNSS). Learned
First Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar vide order dated 27.06.2025 while
upholding the order passed by learned JMFC, dismissed the revision.
4. The succinct portrayal of the facts is that the complainant
Namdeo Hedoy, Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Sagar had
submitted a written letter addressed to the Officer-in-charge of the Police
Station Sanodha, District Sagar on 05.10.2015 stating that co-accused
Santosh Kumar Bajaj, Chairman of Kasturi Prathmik Beej Utpadak
Sahakari Samiti, Magron Shahpur, had submitted a fake list of farmers
during the year 2012-13 for receiving seeds grant and thereby cheated the
department. It is also stated that the Joint Director Shri D.L. Kori, has
conducted an enquiry wherein it has been found that co-accused Santosh
Kumar had submitted a fake list of 105 farmers, whereupon co-accused
Mangilal Chouhan, Deputy Director has sanctioned the grant which was
actually to be credited directly in favour of the farmers through their bank
accounts but instead of doing so the co-accused Mangilal Chouhan,
Deputy Director has allowed the payment directly to the account of Kasturi
Prathmik Beej Utpadak Sahakari Samiti and thereby co-accused Santosh
Kumar received Rs.12.79 Lakh. It has been alleged that the petitioner has
verified and recommended the said list of farmers in connivance with the
other co-accused persons. An FIR vide Crime No. 246/2015 for the offence
punishable under Section 420 r/w 120-B of IPC was registered.
4.1 After completion of investigation, a final report was submitted
to the court of JMFC, Sagar. The petitioner has filed an application under
Section 197 of CrPC stating that what the petitioner had done was in his
official capacity and while discharging his official duty, therefore,
cognizance of the alleged offence cannot be taken without the previous
sanction of the State Government. Since, no such sanction has been
obtained by the prosecution, therefore, the cognizance and the prosecution
against the petitioner deserves to be quashed. Learned JMFC vide
impugned order dated 22.02.2025 dismissed the application. Against
which, the petitioner has preferred criminal revision, which was also
dismissed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar. Ergo, the
petitioner has preferred the present petition before this Court.
5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that
present is the case of glaring example of fallacious implication and prima
facie no offence is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner has
neither recommended the payment nor was he responsible for any payment
made to co-accused Santosh Kumar Bajaj, Chairman of Kasturi Prathmik
Beej Utpadak Sahakari Samiti.
5.1 Learned senior counsel submitted that the list placed before
the petitioner was already verified by the officials, which was simply
forwarded by the petitioner without having any knowledge that the same is
fake or concocted. The petitioner was discharging his official duty of
forwarding the list prepared and checked by other officials, and the
petitioner was unaware of the genuineness of the list prepared by others
and he has no source or means to verify the genuineness of the list. He
submitted that forgery of documents prepared by other persons was not
known to the petitioner and there is no evidence to show that the petitioner
was in agreement with other co-accused persons.
5.2 It is further submitted that since the alleged offence was said
to be committed by attesting, endorsing and recommending the list of
farmers, the act of the petitioner was clearly done while acting or
performing the act in the discharge of his official duty. Therefore, to
prosecute the petitioner, sanction of the State Government is mandatory
and for want of sanction, cognizance and the prosecution against the
petitioner is liable to be quashed.
5.3 Learned senior counsel vehemently submitted that the learned
ASJ has misconstrued the law laid down in the cases cited in the impugned
order dated 27.06.2025. It is also submitted that the legislature in its
wisdom has already exempted certain offence from the purview of Section
197 of CrPC. Since Sections 420 and 120B of IPC are not included therein,
therefore, sanction of the State Government was required. To bolster his
submissions, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of
the Supreme Court in the case of D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain
(2020) 7 SCC 695 and A. Srinivasulu v. State represented by the
Inspector of Police, (2023) 13 SCC 705, and on a decision of the
coordinate bench of this Court in the case of J.B.S. Chandel v. State of
M.P., I.L.R. 2022 MP 1074.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State submitted
that the act by which the offence of cheating is committed cannot be said
to be an act done in discharge of official duty. It is further submitted that it
is depicted in the evidence collected during the investigation that the
petitioner was responsible for recommending the list of farmers on the
basis of which, co-accused had received the ill-gotten seeds grant. It is
further submitted that the petitioner has in fact used his official position for
recommending the fake list of farmers. Therefore, sanction of the State
Government for prosecuting and taking cognizance against the petitioner
would not be required and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the rival parties at length and
perused the documents available on record as also the integral part of the
case diary.
8. Section 197 of Cr.P.C. falls in the Chapter-XIV- "Conditions
Requisite For Initiation Of Proceedings" i.e. if the conditions mentioned
are not made out or absent, then no prosecution can be set in motion. The
legis idea of Section 197 of CrPC is to provide protection to the
responsible public servants against the institutions of possible vexatious
criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have been committed by them
while they are acting or purporting to act as public servants. This
protection is provided only for the act done by the public servant
connected with his official duties and it is not for the protection for illegal
acts. The relevant part of Section 197 of CrPC, is reproduced herein
below:-
"197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.- (1)
When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a
public servant not removable from his officer save by or
with the sanction of the Government, is accused of any
offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting
or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no
Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the
previous sanction save otherwise provided in the Lokpal and
Lokayuktas Act, 2013-
(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the
case may be, was at the time of commission of the
alleged offence employed, in connection with the
affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the
case may be, was at the time of commission of the
alleged offence employed, in connection with the
affairs of a State of the State Government:
Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a
person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a
Proclamation issued under clause (1) of Article 356 of the
Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as
if for the expression "State Government" occurring therein,
the expression "Central Government" were substituted.]
[Added by Act 43 of 1991, Section 2 (w.e.f. 2-5-1991).
Explanation. - For the removal of doubts it is hereby
declared that no sanction shall be required in case of a
public servant accused of any offence alleged to have been
committed under section 166A, section 166B, section 354,
section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D,
section 370, section 375, section 376, section 376A, section
376AB, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section
376DB, [Inserted by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act,
2013 ] or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code.].
(2) xxx xxx
(3) xxx xxx
(4) xxx xxx"
9. Once it is the view that no case is made out so as to prosecute
an accused, there is no point in making a request for sanction for
prosecution. In case of P. K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim, 2001 CRI.L.J.
3505, it is opined that "No question of sanction can arise under S.197,
unless the act complained of is an offence, the only point for determination
is whether it was committed in the discharge of official duty.".
10. Therefore, while examining the application of provision of
Section 197 of CrPC, it would not be required to analyse the prosecution
case so as to see whether alleged offence has been made out or not or there
is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused/public servant
for the simple reason that if the offence is not made out then the
requirement of sanction of prosecution would not arise.
11. In the case at hand, an officer of the Agriculture Department
of the State Government submitted a written complaint on the basis of
which FIR was registered and during investigation, it has been found that
the co-accused Santosh Kumar Bajaj had submitted a list of farmers, that is
the main document on the basis of which, as per government scheme,
seeds grant could be given, submitted to the other co-accused. The
petitioner was posted as Assistant Director, Agriculture Department and
was responsible for checking and verifying the list before recommending
the same.
12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a public servant and
was posted as Assistant Director at Agriculture Department at the relevant
point of time and he cannot be removed from the office, saved by or with
sanction of the government. The only issue which crops up for
consideration is whether the act of the petitioner was done in the discharge
of his official duty or not. The legislative mandate engrafted in Section 197
of Cr.P.C. has been explicated in a catena of decisions.
13. In case of P. K. Pradhan (supra) the legal proposition has
been settled in the following terms;
"There must be a reasonable connection between the act and
the official duty. It does not matter even if the act exceeds what
is strictly necessary for the discharge of the duty, as this
question will arise only at a later stage when the trial proceeds
on merits. What a Court has to find out is whether the act and
the official duty are so interrelated that one can postulate
reasonably that it was done by the accused in the performance
of official duty, though, possibly in excess of the needs and
requirements of situation."
14. In case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. M. P. Gupta, AIR
2004 SC 730, the underlying legal proposition is as follows;
"It is not the duty which requires examination so much as the
act, because the official act can be performed both in the
discharge of the official duty as well as in dereliction of it. The
act must fall within the scope and range of the official duties of
the public servant concerned. It is the quality of the act which
is important and the protection of this section is available if the
act falls within the scope and range of the official duty. There
cannot be any universal rule to determine whether there is a
reasonable connection between the act done and the official
duty, nor is it possible to lay down any such rule."
15. In case of Center for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of
India, AIR 2005 SC 4413, the Apex Court has held as under;
"The policy of the legislature is to afford adequate protection
to public servants to ensure that they are not prosecuted for
anything done by them in the discharge of their official duties
without reasonable cause, and if sanction is granted, to confer
on the Government, if they choose to exercise it, complete
control of the prosecution. But before S. 197 can be invoked, it
must be shown that the official concerned was accused of an
offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or
purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties."
16. In the well-known case of Parkash Singh Badal v. State of
Punjab, AIR 2007 SC 1274 dealing with the question of sanction for
prosecution under section 197 Cr.P.C. in comparison with Section 19 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 the Supreme Court has categorically
held the legal propositions as under;
"Use of the expression, 'official duty' in S. 197 implies that the
act or omission must have been done by the public servant in
the course of his service and that it should have been in
discharge of his duty. The Section does not extend the
protective cover to every act or omission done by a public
servant in service but restricts its scope of operation to only
those acts or omissions which are done by a public servant in
discharge of official duty. If on facts it is prima facie found that
the act or omission for which the accused was charged had
reasonable connection with discharge of his duty then it must
be held to be official to which applicability of S. 197 cannot be
disputed.
Further held that;
"in a case relatable to S. 197 of Cr. P.C., the substratum and
basic features of the case have to be considered to find out
whether the alleged act has any nexus to the discharge of
duties"
17. In case of Anjani Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr., 2008
CRI. L. J. 2558 = (2008) 5 SCC 248, it has been categorically held as
under;
"Under the colour of office, official duty implies that the act or
omission must have been done by the public servant in course
of his service and such act or omission must have been
performed as part of duty which further must have been official
in nature. The Section has, thus, to be construed strictly, while
determining its applicability to any act or omission in course of
service. Its operation has to be limited to those duties which are
discharged in course of duty. But once any act or omission has
been found to have been committed by a public servant in
discharge of his duty then it must be given liberal and wide
construction so far its official nature is concerned. For instance
a public servant is not entitled to indulge in criminal activities.
To that extent the Section has to be construed narrowly and in a
restricted manner. But once it is established that act or omission
was done by the public servant while discharging his duty then
the scope of its being official should be construed so as to
advance the objective of the Section in favour of the public
servant. Otherwise the entire purpose of affording protection to
a public servant without sanction shall stand frustrated."
18. In case of Choudhury Parveen Sultana v. State of West
Bengal & Anr., 2009 CRI.L.J. 1318 = (2009) 3 SCC 398, it has been held
thus;
"All acts done by a public servant in the purported discharge of
his official duties cannot as a matter of course be brought under
the protective umbrella of Section 197. On the other hand, there
can be cases of misuse and/or abuse of powers vested in a
public servant which can never be said to be a part of the
official duties required to be performed by him. The underlying
object of 197 is to enable the authorities to scrutinize the
allegations made against a public servant to shield him/her
against frivolous, vexatious or false prosecution initiated with
the main object of causing embarrassment and harassment to
the said official. However, if the authority vested in a public
servant is misused for doing things which are not otherwise
permitted under the law, such acts cannot claim the protection
of S. 197 and have to be considered dehors the duties which a
public servant is required to discharge or perform. Hence, in
respect of prosecution for such excesses or misuse of authority,
no protection can be demanded by the public servant
concerned."
19. In case of Station House Officer v. B.A. Srinivasan, (2020)
2 SCC 153, the Supreme Court has held that;
"protection under Section 197 of CrPC is available to
public servant when an offence is said to have been
committed while acting or purporting to act in discharge of
their official duty, but where the acts are performed using
the office as a mere cloak for unlawful gains, such acts are
not protected."
20. In the present case, it has been alleged that the petitioner has
committed the offence under Section 420 r/w 120-B of IPC. In the case of
Parkash Singh Badal (supra), it has been categorically held that the
offence of cheating under Section 420 of IPC or for that matter offence
relatable to Sections 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of the IPC can
by no stretch of imagination by its very nature be recorded as having been
committed by any public servant while acting or purporting to act in
discharge of official duty. In such cases, official status only provides an
opportunity for commission of offence. In case of Bholu Ram v. State of
Punjab & Anr., 2008 CRI.L.J. 4576 = (2008) 9 SCC 140, it has been
observed that "the offences punishable u/S.409, u/S.420, u/S.467, u/S.468,
u/S.471, etc. of IPC cannot be regarded as having been committed by a
public servant while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official
duty."
21. The requirement of Section 197 of CrPC is that the act by
which offence has been constituted must be discharged in official duty of
the public servant concerned. It cannot be understood conversely that the
act which constitutes the offence does not amount to act discharged in the
official duty, otherwise, the whole purpose of statutory idea of protection
of public servant from vexatious and baseless prosecution will frustrate. As
per the prosecution case, it has been alleged against the petitioner that he
was responsible for checking and verifying the list of farmers before
recommending the same, thus, he has used his official position in
connivance with the other co-accused persons and thereby conspired with
the co-accused, therefore, the petitioner has committed the offence under
Section 420 read with Section 120B of IPC.
22. Avowedly, the petitioner was posted as Assistant Director and
he was supposed to check and then recommend the list of farmers which is
the core document of receiving the seeds grant. The question whether the
petitioner has done so with the intention and knowledge that the fake list
was prepared for receiving the seeds grant in favour of co-accused Santosh
Kumar Bajaj or he had simply recommended the list unaware of the ill-
intention of the co-accused persons would depend up on the merits of the
case that can be ascertained on the basis of evidence recorded during the
course of trial. For reaching a decisive conclusion, it is imperative to go
through the settled legal position in this regard.
23. In case of P. K. Pradhan (supra) it is opined that; "In order to
come to the conclusion whether claim of the accused, that the act that he
did was in course of the performance of his duty was reasonable one and
neither pretended nor fanciful, can be examined during the course of trial
by giving opportunity to the defence to establish it. In such an eventuality,
the question of sanction should be left open to be decided in the main
judgment which may be delivered upon conclusion of the trial." The legal
proposition laid down in M. P. Gupta (supra) and further reiterated in
Center for Public Interest Litigation (supra) is as under;
"One safe and sure test in this regard would be consider if the
omission or neglect on the part of the public servant to commit
the act complained of could have made him answerable for a
charge of dereliction of his official duty, if the answer to his
question is in the affirmative, it may be said that such act was
committed by the public servant while acting in the discharge
of his official duty and there was every connection with the act
complained of and the official duty of the public servant. This
aspect makes it clear that the concept of Section 197 does not
get immediately attracted on institution of the complaint case."
24. In Jayasingh v. K.K. Velayutham, (2006) 2 SCC (Cri.) 573,
it has been opined that the question as to whether sanction is necessary or
not, that may be appropriately raised at different stages of the case
depending upon the allegations made in the complaint. In Parkash Singh
Badal (supra), the Apex Court has expressed the view that the question
relating to the need of sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is not
necessarily to be considered as soon as the complaint is lodged and on the
allegations contained therein. This question may arise at any stage of the
proceedings. The question whether sanction is necessary or not may have
to be determined from stage to stage.
25. In Station House Officer v. B.A. Srinivasan (supra), it has
been held that; "the issue whether the alleged act is intricately connected in
discharge of official function and whether the matter would come within
the expression "while acting or purporting to act in discharge of their
official duty", would at times get crystalized only after evidence is led and
issue of sanction can be agitated at the later stage as well."
26. In the factual matrix of the present case, the question of
requirement of sanction for prosecution being an act done in discharge of
official duty by the petitioner holding office of public servant can be
determined at the appropriate stage of the trial. The act of the petitioner
was done in discharge of his official duty can be decided on the basis of
evidence recorded during the trial. If the intention or knowledge and
thereby agreement with co-accused persons by the petitioner appeared,
then certainly the protection under Section 197 of CrPC shall not be
available for the reason that the said offence cannot be said to be done by
an act in discharge of official duty as per the legal propositions referred
herein before. However, on a different note, if the act complained of was
only an omission or neglect on the part of the petitioner for which he could
have been made answerable for a charge of dereliction of his official duty,
then the act committed by the petitioner will be considered as in discharge
of his official duty covered under Section 197 of CrPC.
27. Therefore, the present petition is disposed of with a direction
that the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise the issue of sanction for
prosecution required under Section 197 of CrPC during the appropriate
stage of trial wherein the petitioner may establish his defence and in such
an eventuality, the question of requirement of sanction will be decided by
the trial Court.
(RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY)
JUDGE
sudesh
