Complaint Against Police Officers: Supreme Court Says Lack of Section 197 Sanction Cannot Stop a Section 156(3) Investigation

Case at a Glance

The Supreme Court has revived a Magistrate-ordered investigation against a police sub-inspector and four constables accused by an entrepreneur of illegal detention, coercion and tampering with his phone. It held that an order under Section 156(3) CrPC is a pre-cognizance step, so the absence of sanction under Section 197 CrPC cannot bar registration of the FIR or investigation, and that the Priyanka Srivastava safeguards were substantially complied with.

The appellant, who described himself as the founder of a healthcare analytics company and a co-founder of a hospital venture, alleged that after a falling-out with a business associate, police raided his home on 3 November 2020, seized his laptop, took him to Channapatna East Police Station, accessed his phone and deleted data, and that he was coerced into signing away his partnership and shares. Two criminal cases were registered against him; one was later closed by a CID B-Report finding the dispute civil and the other was quashed by the High Court.

He complained by email to the DCP on 28 December 2020 and to the DG and IG of Police on 27 November 2021, and then filed a private complaint. On 1 August 2022 the Magistrate at Channapatna directed investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC and an FIR was registered. On 29 May 2023 the Karnataka High Court quashed the order and FIR against a PSI and four constables, holding that Section 197 sanction was needed and that Priyanka Srivastava had not been followed.

The Key Question Before the Court

Can a Magistrate's direction to investigate police officers under Section 156(3) CrPC be quashed for want of sanction under Section 197 CrPC, or for not first approaching the police?

Sanction Belongs to Cognizance; Priyanka Srivastava Is Not a Formality

The Court held that “An order under Section 156(3) CrPC directing registration of an FIR and investigation is a pre-cognizance step,” and that “the absence or otherwise of previous sanction under Section 197 CrPC cannot operate as a bar” at that stage. Counsel for the accused officers also conceded that the question of sanction arises at cognizance.

On Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., the Court found that the appellant had approached the police and then the DCP and the DG and IG before going to the Magistrate, so the object of the guidelines was substantially met. It said the safeguards cannot be applied as a mere matter of procedural formality and held the High Court’s contrary finding “per se unsustainable both in facts and in law.”

What the Court Actually Held

• The High Court’s judgment quashing the FIR against the police officers was set aside.
• The Final Report of 20 September 2023 is to be reopened and the investigation resumed from that stage.
• The Investigating Officer should keep in mind the desirability of seeking sanction if offences are found and the acts were done in official duty.
• The appeals were allowed.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It clarifies that Section 197 sanction does not block the investigation stage.
• It prevents Priyanka Srivastava from being used as a technical shield.
• It matters to citizens with complaints of police excess.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Complainants

• Record every approach to the police and senior officers before moving the Magistrate.
• Argue that sanction is a cognizance-stage question, not a bar to investigation.

For Accused Public Servants

• Raise the Section 197 plea at the stage of cognizance.
• Remember that substantial compliance with Priyanka Srivastava may suffice.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

No. It only revived the investigation.

At the stage of cognizance; the Court said the IO should keep sanction in mind if offences are found.

Yes. The Court found he approached the police, the DCP and the DG and IG before the Magistrate.

Conclusion