• Prior sanction for registration of FIR against a police inspector

Plz clarify of prior sanction is required for registration of FIR against Police Inspector for crimes such as fraud criminal breach of trust etc.
Asked 4 years ago in Criminal Law
Religion: Hindu

First answer received in 10 minutes.

Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.

13 Answers

Any victim can register a FIR against the officer at any police station.

Moumita Mitra
Advocate, Kolkata
366 Answers
1 Consultation

4.0 on 5.0

No write what ever complains you have against whomso ever.

Last paragraph write kindly lodge FIR and inform me at the earliest of FIR number and date.

Send the same through speed post. Police will be bound to accept it and they have to lodge it in 24 hours to avoid contempt of court

Aveek Bose
Advocate, Kolkata
1222 Answers
9 Consultations

4.7 on 5.0

Sanctioning is required before taking cognizance of offence against a public servant and that too when the offence allegedly committed y him was done in discharge of his duty.

If the act alleged had no connection with discharging his public duty then no sanction is required.

At FIR stage there is no necessary to take prior sanction either as prescribed under section 197 of crpc.

Decisions of superior court has no blanket applicability

So if you share with the contents of FIR and your doubts with regard thereto decisions may be cited.

Devajyoti Barman
Advocate, Kolkata
22515 Answers
402 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

question of sanction is of paramount importance for protecting a public servant who has acted in good faith while performing his duties. The purpose of obtaining sanction is to see that the public servant be not unnecessarily harassed on a complaint

failing which it would not be possible for a public servant to discharge his duties without fear and favor.’

Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act reads as follows; 19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution. (1) No court shall take ...cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction, – (a) In the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union ...and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government;...

Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
87947 Answers
6207 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

No prior permission is required to lodge any FIR against police inspector or any government servant.

Shower if offence is committed by police inspector where 197 Crpc is applicable that is purporting to act in discharge of his official duty, government sanction is required before court take cognizance of offence.

Shubham Jhajharia
Advocate, Ahmedabad
25516 Answers
179 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

1. Sanction under 197 cr pc is required only when some trial has to start in relationships to alleged crime done during the course of the duty and not otherwise.

If the fraud etc is outside the scope of employment then sanction is not required

Regards

Anilesh Tewari
Advocate, New Delhi
17940 Answers
377 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

Summary if offence us under prevention of corruption act section 19 is applicable and previous sanction before cognizance required FIR can be filed.

So give a written complaint in police station to register FIR they have to SC decision that police cannot deny to register FIR.

Further refer this judgement for insight that no permission required.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/27660077/

Shubham Jhajharia
Advocate, Ahmedabad
25516 Answers
179 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

Refer to the following link for the judgment:

https://m.facebook.com/notes/ravee-skrravee/latest-sc-judgment-public-servant-no-sanction-for-prosecution/[deleted]/

Regards

Anilesh Tewari
Advocate, New Delhi
17940 Answers
377 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

Previous sanction is imperative to prosecute public servants who is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty.

Rajaganapathy Ganesan
Advocate, Chennai
2085 Answers
8 Consultations

4.9 on 5.0

Prior sanction required for initiation of trail and not for filling FIR and investigation.

Yogendra Singh Rajawat
Advocate, Jaipur
21481 Answers
31 Consultations

4.4 on 5.0

Anil Kumar and in L. Narayana Swamy v. State of Karnataka following the earlier judgments. The sub-stratum of the argument is that the requirement of prior sanction for prosecution against the public servant would arise only when cognizance is taken...

Yogendra Singh Rajawat
Advocate, Jaipur
21481 Answers
31 Consultations

4.4 on 5.0

Be you ever so high, the law is above you. Investigation into every accusation made against each and every person on a reasonable basis, irrespective of the position and status of that person, must be conducted and completed expeditiously”.[Vineet Narain Vs. Union of India AIR 1998 SC 889 ; (1998) 1 SCC 226]....

So far as public servants are concerned, the cognizance of any offence, by any Court, is barred by Section 197 of the Code unless sanction is obtained from the appropriate authority, if the offence, alleged to have been committed, was in discharge of...the official duty. The section not only specifies the persons to whom the protection is afforded but it also specifies the conditions and circumstances in which it shall be available and the effect in law if the conditions are satisfied.

The Supreme Court has said that sanction to prosecute a public servant is not required if the alleged offence was committed when he was not discharging official duty.

T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
78104 Answers
1543 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

Plz mention Supreme Court rulings on this issue.

A bench of Justices J S Khehar and C Nagappan upheld the settled law and dismissed the appeal of two senior Punjab Police officials who had contended that a criminal case pending against them cannot be proceeded in the absence of sanction to prosecute them.

The court was hearing appeal of Deputy Superintendents of Punjab Police, SS Mand and PS Parmar, who were accused of illegally detaining one Neeraj Kumar in a vehicle theft case for four days without formally arresting him.

It clearly follows from the reading of the judgments in the cases of Abhay Singh Chautala and Prakash Singh Badal that if the public servant had abused entirely different office or offices than the one which he was holding on the date when cognizance was taken, there was no necessity of sanction under Section 19 of the P.C. Act.

in the case of R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay

(See Mohd. Iqbal Ahmad v. State of A.P. [(1979) 4 SCC 172 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 926 : AIR 1979 SC 677 : (1979) 2 SCR 1007] )

T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
78104 Answers
1543 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

Ask a Lawyer

Get legal answers from lawyers in 1 hour. It's quick, easy, and anonymous!
  Ask a lawyer