The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that summoning a public servant as an additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC requires concrete evidence of direct involvement, not mere association with official duties. The judgment reinforces the necessity of prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC when acts are reasonably connected to official functions, setting a critical precedent for prosecutorial overreach.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arises from allegations of fraud and forgery concerning the sale of a municipal plot under the Priyadarshani Scheme in Itarsi, Madhya Pradesh. The complainant, Shanker Rasal, alleged that Revenue Sub-Inspector Sanjeev Shrivastava and Raja Saifi forged municipal documents, misrepresented land availability, and collected Rs. 9,00,000 without delivering possession of Plot No.81-A. The complainant further claimed that Rs. 2,00,000 was paid to a Sub-Registrar, though no such official existed.
Key Facts
- The alleged fraudulent transaction occurred on or before 25.07.2019, when the written complaint was submitted.
- FIR No. 635/2019 was registered at Police Station Itarsi on 26.07.2019 against Sanjeev Shrivastava and Raja Saifi.
- The petitioner, Akshat Bundela, was the Chief Municipal Officer (CMO) of Itarsi during the relevant period (2018 - 2020).
- The petitioner had delegated authority under Section 92(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, to Sanjeev Shrivastava for execution of registry documents - a delegation that predated his tenure and was part of routine administrative practice.
- The petitioner was not named in the FIR, nor was he investigated or charge-sheeted after completion of the probe.
- No documentary or oral evidence linked the petitioner to the preparation of forged documents, receipt of money, or misrepresentation.
- The petitioner’s role was purely administrative: delegation of registry functions, not participation in the transaction.
Procedural History
- 25.07.2019: Written complaint filed by Shanker Rasal.
- 26.07.2019: FIR No. 635/2019 registered against Sanjeev Shrivastava and Raja Saifi.
- 01.12.2020: Charge-sheet filed before the Court of Sessions, Itarsi, naming only the two accused.
- 10.01.2025: Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Itarsi, invoked Section 319 CrPC to summon Akshat Bundela as an additional accused, citing his position as CMO and the delegation of powers.
- 31.03.2026: Writ petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 (equivalent to Section 482 CrPC, 1973) before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner: The petitioner argued that he had no role in the fraud, was never investigated, and his delegation of registry powers was a lawful, routine administrative act. He contended that summoning him under Section 319 CrPC was based on speculation and his official position, not evidence. He further asserted that sanction under Section 197 CrPC was mandatory and had not been obtained.
For the Respondent/State: The State defended the Trial Court’s order, arguing that sufficient evidence emerged during trial to suggest the petitioner’s involvement due to his supervisory role and the delegation of powers. It claimed the Trial Court had properly applied Section 319 CrPC.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 10.01.2025 summoning him as an additional accused and cancellation of all proceedings against him arising from FIR No. 635/2019.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a public servant can be summoned as an additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC based solely on his official position and delegation of duties, without any incriminating evidence emerging during trial, and whether Section 197 of the CrPC mandates prior sanction before such summoning when the acts are reasonably connected to official duty.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on Amal Kumar Jha v. State of Chhattisgarh, State of M.P. v. Sheetla Sahai, and B.L. Verma to argue that acts performed in discharge of official duty - even if in excess or misused - fall within the protective ambit of Section 197 CrPC. He emphasized that no evidence linked him to forgery, fraud, or receipt of money. The delegation of registry powers was a standard administrative practice, not a criminal act. The absence of investigation or charge-sheeting confirmed the Investigating Agency’s conclusion that no case existed against him. The Trial Court’s order was based on inference, not evidence.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the petitioner’s position as CMO and his delegation of authority created a reasonable basis to infer involvement. It argued that the Trial Court had the discretion to summon additional accused under Section 319 CrPC if evidence during trial suggested guilt, and that the petitioner’s administrative role was integral to the fraud’s execution.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a meticulous review of the record and found no material to support the Trial Court’s conclusion. The impugned order relied on the petitioner’s official position and the delegation of powers as the sole basis for summoning him - an approach the Court found legally untenable.
"The very foundation on which the learned Trial Court has exercised jurisdiction under Section 319 of the Code is manifestly unsustainable in the peculiar facts of the present case."
The Court emphasized that Section 319 CrPC permits summoning of an additional accused only when evidence during trial discloses a strong possibility of guilt. Mere association with the accused or holding a supervisory role is insufficient. The Court noted that the petitioner’s delegation of registry functions was not an isolated act but a long-standing administrative practice, and there was no evidence he knew of or participated in the fraud.
The Court further held that the acts attributed to the petitioner - delegating authority to a subordinate for registry purposes - were reasonably connected to his official duty under Section 92(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961. Citing Amal Kumar Jha, B.L. Verma, and Matajog Dobey, the Court reaffirmed that Section 197 CrPC applies whenever an act has a reasonable nexus with official duty, even if performed in excess or with mala fide intent by a subordinate. The requirement of sanction is not procedural but jurisdictional.
"Sanction under Section 197 CrPC is not a mere procedural requirement but a condition precedent which goes to the root of jurisdiction, and in absence of such sanction the prosecution of a public servant for acts connected with official duty cannot be sustained."
The Court concluded that the Trial Court erred in bypassing Section 197 CrPC and in summoning the petitioner without any incriminating evidence. The order was therefore legally infirm.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 10.01.2025 summoning the petitioner as an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC was set aside. All proceedings against the petitioner arising from FIR No. 635/2019 were quashed. The Court directed that no further action be taken against the petitioner in connection with the said case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Public Servants Cannot Be Summoned on Position Alone
- Practitioners must challenge summoning under Section 319 CrPC where the accused’s role is purely administrative and no direct evidence links them to the offence.
- Mere supervisory authority or delegation of functions does not equate to criminal participation.
Section 197 CrPC Protection Is Jurisdictional, Not Procedural
- Any prosecution against a public servant for acts connected to official duty requires prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC, even if the act is alleged to be in excess of duty.
- Courts must examine the nexus between the act and official duty at the earliest stage; failure to obtain sanction vitiates the entire proceeding.
Evidence Must Be Concrete, Not Inferential
-
Section 319 CrPC cannot be invoked on suspicion, speculation, or circumstantial association.
-
The evidence must be specific, incriminating, and emerge during trial - not from the FIR or complaint alone.
-
Always verify whether the accused’s role is operational or administrative before filing or opposing a Section 319 application.
-
Where Section 197 CrPC applies, file a preliminary objection to jurisdiction before any substantive hearing.
