பொது ஊழியர்கள் மீது குற்ற வழக்கு தொடுக்க CRPC 197 பிரிவின் கீழ் அனுமதி பெறத் தேவையில்லை.

அலுவல் ரீதியாக இல்லாத பணியில் ஈடுபடுவதால் நிகழும் குற்றங்களுக்கு, பொது ஊழியர்கள் மீது குற்ற வழக்கு தொடுக்க CRPC 197 பிரிவின் கீழ் அனுமதி பெறத் தேவையில்லை என்பதை உச்சநீதிமன்றம் தீர்ப்பின் மூலம் உறுதி செய்துள்ளது.

Supreme Court judgment that clarified the law on when public servants can be prosecuted for crimes committed outside of their official duties. The judgment held that complainants do not need to obtain permission from the government to file a criminal case against them for offenses committed while engaged in unofficial work.

2024 INSC 42
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.256 OF 2024
SHADAKSHARI APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Challenge made in this appeal is to the order dated
   25.11.2020 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at
   Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No.4998 of 2020 (Sri.
   Mallikarjuna Vs. State of Karnataka) quashing the complaint
   dated 19.12.2016 lodged by the appellant; the chargesheet in
   C.C. No.116 of 2018 including the order dated 28.03.2018
   passed therein by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
   Belur.
3. Facts lie within a very narrow compass. The appellant as the
   complainant lodged a first information report dated 19.12.2016
   (referred to as ‘the complaint’ in the impugned order) alleging
4. 2024 INSC 42
5. REPORTABLE
6. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
7. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
8. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.256 OF 2024
9. SHADAKSHARI APPELLANT(S)
10. VERSUS
11. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
12. J U D G M E N T
13. UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
14. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
15. Challenge made in this appeal is to the order dated
    25.11.2020 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at
    Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No.4998 of 2020 (Sri.
    Mallikarjuna Vs. State of Karnataka) quashing the complaint
    dated 19.12.2016 lodged by the appellant; the chargesheet in
    C.C. No.116 of 2018 including the order dated 28.03.2018
    passed therein by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
    Belur.
16. Facts lie within a very narrow compass. The appellant as the
    complainant lodged a first information report dated 19.12.2016
    (referred to as ‘the complaint’ in the impugned order) alleging
17. 2024 INSC 42
18. REPORTABLE
19. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
20. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
21. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.256 OF 2024
22. SHADAKSHARI APPELLANT(S)
23. VERSUS
24. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
25. J U D G M E N T
26. UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
27. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
28. Challenge made in this appeal is to the order dated
    25.11.2020 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at
    Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No.4998 of 2020 (Sri.
    Mallikarjuna Vs. State of Karnataka) quashing the complaint
    dated 19.12.2016 lodged by the appellant; the chargesheet in
    C.C. No.116 of 2018 including the order dated 28.03.2018
    passed therein by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
    Belur.
29. Facts lie within a very narrow compass. The appellant as the
    complainant lodged a first information report dated 19.12.2016
    (referred to as ‘the complaint’ in the impugned order) alleging
30. 2024 INSC 42
31. REPORTABLE
32. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
33. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
34. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.256 OF 2024
35. SHADAKSHARI APPELLANT(S)
36. VERSUS
37. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
38. J U D G M E N T
39. UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
40. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
41. Challenge made in this appeal is to the order dated
    25.11.2020 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at
    Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No.4998 of 2020 (Sri.
    Mallikarjuna Vs. State of Karnataka) quashing the complaint
    dated 19.12.2016 lodged by the appellant; the chargesheet in
    C.C. No.116 of 2018 including the order dated 28.03.2018
    passed therein by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
    Belur.
42. Facts lie within a very narrow compass. The appellant as the
    complainant lodged a first information report dated 19.12.2016
    (referred to as ‘the complaint’ in the impugned order) alleging
43. 2024 INSC 42
44. REPORTABLE
45. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
46. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
47. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.256 OF 2024
48. SHADAKSHARI APPELLANT(S)
49. VERSUS
50. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
51. J U D G M E N T
52. UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
53. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
54. Challenge made in this appeal is to the order dated
    25.11.2020 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at
    Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No.4998 of 2020 (Sri.
    Mallikarjuna Vs. State of Karnataka) quashing the complaint
    dated 19.12.2016 lodged by the appellant; the chargesheet in
    C.C. No.116 of 2018 including the order dated 28.03.2018
    passed therein by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
    Belur.
55. Facts lie within a very narrow compass. The appellant as the
    complainant lodged a first information report dated 19.12.2016
    (referred to as ‘the complaint’ in the impugned order) alleging