/2023 INSC 0278/
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1088 OF 2023
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.4517 of 2019)
DR. S.M. MANSOORI (DEAD) THR. L.R.   …APPELLANT
versus
SUREKHA PARMAR & ORS.       ...RESPONDENTS
J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T
ABHAY S. OKA, J .
1. Leave  granted.    We  have  heard  the  learned counsel
appearing   for   the   appellant   and   the   learned   counsel
appearing   for   the   private   respondents   as   well   as   for   the
State. 
FACTUAL ASPECTS 
2. The appellant filed a complaint under Section 200 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’)
in   the   Court   of   the   learned   Judicial   Magistrate   (First
Class)   at   Anuppur.     Cognizance   of   the   offences
punishable under Sections 147, 323, 342, 504 and 506­B
Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P.(Crl.) No.4517 of 2019
Page  1  of  9

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) was taken
by   the   learned   Judicial   Magistrate   on   the   basis   of   the
complaint.
3. The   original   appellant   was   the   complainant.     The
appellant (1.1) – Dr. Mushtaq Mansoori is the son of the
original   appellant.     Dr.   Mushtaq   was   married   to   one
Mehjabi   Anjum.     On   the   basis   of   a   complaint   filed   by
Mehjabi on 18 th
 January 2000, a First Information Report
(F.I.R.) was registered by Mahila Police Station, Jabalpur
against   the   appellant   and   their   family   members   for   the
offences   punishable   under   Section   498­A,   and   Section
506 read with Section 34 of IPC as well as Section 3 read
with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1964.
4. The  allegation  in  the complaint  filed by   the original
appellant is that on 6 th
  July 2000, the first respondent –
Smt. Surekha Parmar, the then Asst. Sub­Inspector (ASI)
of   the   Mahila   Police   Station,   Jabalpur   along   with   other
police   personnel   shown   as   accused   in   the   complaint
came   to   Anuppur   to   arrest   the   appellant   and   his   family
members.     It   is   pointed   out   that   the   appellant   and   his
family   members   were   staying   within   the   jurisdiction   of
Anuppur Police Station.  The first respondent entered the
jurisdiction   of   another   Police   Station   to   arrest   the
appellant and his family members.
Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P.(Crl.) No.4517 of 2019
Page  2  of  9

5. The   case   made   out   in   the   complaint   is   that   on   7 th
July  2000 at about  05:30 a.m., the first  respondent  and
other police personnel entered the house of the appellant
in   Anuppur.     The   first   respondent   along   with   others
started   abusing   and   beating   the   original   appellant   with
kicks   and   fists.     He   was   dragged   out   of   his   room   by
holding   his   hair.     The   first   respondent   and   other   police
personnel   assaulted   the   appellant   (1.1)   with   kicks,   fists
and   dandas.     It   is   alleged   that   due   to   the   injuries
sustained   by   him,   the   appellant   (1.1)   fell   down.     At   that
time, the first respondent snatched a gold chain weighing
about   one   and   a   half   tolas   worn   by   the   appellant   (1.1).
The   other   police   personnel   dragged   the   younger   brother
of the appellant (1.1) to the original appellant’s room and
while   doing   so,   hurled   filthy   abuses   at   him.     He   was
assaulted   by   the   other   police   personnel   accompanying
the first respondent.   Thereafter, by showing a pistol, the
first   respondent   and   co­accused   Laxmi   took   out   cash
amount   of   Rs.15,000/­   from   almirah   along   with   four
golden ornaments.
6. A crowd gathered outside the house of the appellant
and   some   of   them   questioned   the   authority   of   the   first
respondent.  At that time, the first respondent threatened
the   crowd   and   the   persons   who   were   challenging   her
authority.     Thereafter,   the   original   appellant   and   other
Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P.(Crl.) No.4517 of 2019
Page  3  of  9

members of his family were handcuffed and made to walk
up   to   the   Police   Station   at   Anuppur   where   they   were
detained.   After some local residents arrived at the Police
Station   to   enquire   about   the   appellant   and   his   family
members, the first respondent told them to persuade the
appellant   to   give   her   Rs.30,000/­,   failing   which,   she
would   torture   the   arrested   persons.     Subsequently,   the
appellant and her family members were taken by the first
respondent to Jabalpur  and were detained in the lockup
of Mahila Police Station.
7. The   first   respondent   and   others   approached   the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh by filing a petition under
Section   482   of   Cr.P.C.   for   quashing   the   complaint.     On
17 th
  May   2010,   the   petition   was   dismissed   by   the   High
Court of Madhya Pradesh.
8. The   learned   Magistrate   framed   charges   against   the
first   respondent   for   the   offences   punishable   under
Sections   147,   323,   504,   506(2)   read   with   Section   34   of
IPC.   The said order was subjected to a challenge by the
first   respondent   before   the   Sessions   Court   by   filing   a
Revision   Application,   which   was   dismissed.     Being
aggrieved by the orders of the learned Magistrate and the
learned   Sessions   Court,   the   first   respondent   filed   a
petition   under   Section   482   of   Cr.P.C.   before   the   High
Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P.(Crl.) No.4517 of 2019
Page  4  of  9

Court.     By   the   impugned   judgment,   the   High   Court
proceeded   to   quash   the   charges   framed   against   the   first
respondent   on   the   ground   that   a   prior   sanction   under
Section 197 of Cr.P.C. was not obtained.
SUBMISSIONS
9. The   submission   made   by   the   learned   counsel
appearing   for   the   appellant   is   that   at   this   stage,   the
correctness   of   the   accusations   in   the   complaint   filed   by
the   appellant   cannot   be   gone   into.     The   learned   counsel
submitted   that   going   by   the   allegations   made   in   the
complaint, it cannot be said that the impugned actions of
the   first   respondent   were   taken   while   acting   or
purporting to act in discharge of her official duty.
10. The   learned   counsel   representing   the   first
respondent   as   well   as   the   State   submitted   that   on   the
basis   of   the   F.I.R.   registered   at   Mahila   Police   Station   at
Jabalpur, the first respondent and other police personnel
came to Anuppur  to arrest the appellant.   Therefore, the
first respondent visited the house of the appellant in the
discharge of her official duty.   In any case, it can be said
that   the   first   respondent   purported   to   act   in   the
discharge   of   her   duties.     Therefore,   the   High   Court   has
rightly   come   to   the   conclusion   that   the   complaint   was
Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P.(Crl.) No.4517 of 2019
Page  5  of  9

liable   to   be   dismissed   on   the   ground   that   a   sanction
under Section 197 of Cr.P.C was required.
11. The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   appellant
submitted  that  the   first  respondent   had  raised  the  issue
of sanction by filing earlier application under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. before the High Court, which was dismissed on
17 th
  may   2010.     He   would,   therefore,   submit   that   the
issue of absence of sanction cannot be agitated now.  The
learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   first   respondent
contended   that   in   the   said   judgment,   the   issue   of
sanction has been expressly kept open.
OUR VIEW
12. We   have   considered   the   submissions   and   perused
the   judgment  dated  17 th
  May  2010  of  the   High  Court  on
the   earlier   petition   filed   by   the   first   respondent   under
Section   482   of   Cr.P.C.     In   paragraph   7,   the   High   Court
held thus:
“ 7.  Apparently, the bar contained in Section
197   of   the   Code   would   not   be   attracted   to
the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
present   case   simply   because   the   police
officers   had   exceeded   their   authority   in
proceeding to arrest the accused persons at
Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P.(Crl.) No.4517 of 2019
Page  6  of  9

Anuppur   which   was   not   within   the
territorial   jurisdiction   of   the   Mahila   Police
Station   of   Jabalpur.     They   ought   to   have
contacted the local police; apprised the local
police   officials   of   the   matter   and   solicited
their   assistance   in   effecting   arrest   of   the
accused persons.”
13. In paragraph 11, the High Court held thus: 
“ 11.   For these reasons, it is not possible to
conclude   that   the   allegations   made   in   the
complaint   even   if   taken   at   their   face   value
and   accepted   in   their   entirety,   would   not
constitute   any   offence   against   the
petitioners.     Moreover,   the   conclusion
that   Section   197   is   a   bar   to   the
prosecution   of   the   petitioners   police
officers   would   be   a   premature
conclusion. ”
                        (emphasis added)
Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P.(Crl.) No.4517 of 2019
Page  7  of  9

14. The   aforesaid   judgment   of   the   High   Court   has
become   final.     On   the   basis   of   material   on   record,   the
High Court had held that in the facts of the case, it would
be premature to hold that Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is a bar
to   the   prosecution.     This   observation   holds   good   even
today,   inasmuch   as   the   evidence   has   not   been   adduced
in the complaint. 
15. Going by the assertions in the complaint filed by the
appellant,   prima   facie,   it   appears   that   without   any
authority,   the   first   respondent,   along   with   other   police
personnel, entered the house of the appellant early in the
morning   and   committed   the   offences   alleged   against
them.     Looking   at   the   nature   of   the   allegations   in   the
complaint, at this stage, it is impossible to conclude that
the   acts   allegedly   done   by   the   first   respondent   were
committed by her while acting or purporting to act in the
discharge of her official duty.  Therefore, at this stage, we
cannot   conclude   that   a   sanction   under   Section   197   of
Cr.P.C. was required.     In the  facts of  the  case, the final
view on this issue can be taken only after the evidence is
recorded.     Therefore,   there   was   no   reason   for   the   High
Court   to   quash   the   proceedings   at   this   stage   on   the
Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P.(Crl.) No.4517 of 2019
Page  8  of  9

ground   that   a   sanction   under   Section   197   was
mandatory.
16. Accordingly,   the   impugned   judgment   is   set   aside
and   the   order   of   the   learned   Trial   Court   of   framing
charges is restored.   The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
However,   we   make   it   clear   that   the   observations   and
findings   recorded   in   this   judgment   are   for   limited
purposes   of   considering   a   challenge   to   the   order   of   the
High Court.   Nothing  observed in this judgment  shall be
construed   as   any   final   adjudication   on   the   merits   of   the
pending complaint including the issue of sanction. 
….……………J.
          (Abhay S. Oka)
.………………J.
          (Rajesh Bindal)
New Delhi;
April 12, 2023.   
Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P.(Crl.) No.4517 of 2019
Page  9  of  9