HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 39401 of 2025 Court No. - 78 HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra Pal, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant petition has been preferred for quashing the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.3003 of 2024 and impugned charge sheet dated 19.04.2023 as well as cognizance order dated 05.02.2024 submitted in Case crime No.25 of 2022 under Sections 427, 201 IPC and 153 The Railway Act, 1989 Police Station G.R.P. District Rampur against applicant. 3. While challenging the orders impugned, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that impugned summoning order has been passed without due compliance of Section 197 Cr.P.C. since the applicant was a Government servant at the time of alleged incident. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case and he has not committed any offence as alleged. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that the eye witnesses of the alleged incident are the interested witnesses but without considering the said facts, learned court concerned passed the order impugned without complying the mandatory provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. and as such, impugned summoning order may be quashed. 4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon paragraph 40 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of G.C. Manjunath & others vs. Seetaram 2025 5 SCC 390. Paragraph-40 of the said judgment is reproduced below:- "In the present case, it is evident that the actions attributed to the accused persons emanate from the discharge of their official duties, specifically in connection with the investigation of criminal cases pending against the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ramesh Chandra Pal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Junaid Khan .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) complainant. As previously observed, a mere excess or overreach in the performance of official duty does not, by itself, disentitle a public servant from the statutory protection mandated by law. The safeguard of obtaining prior sanction from the competent authority, as envisaged under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C and Section 170 of the Police Act cannot be rendered nugatory merely because the Act alleged may have exceeded the strict bounds of official duty. In view of the foregoing, we are of the considered opinion that the learned VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the alleged offences against the accused persons without the requisite sanction for prosecution in the instant case. The absence of the necessary sanction vitiates the very initiation of criminal proceedings against the accused persons." 5. Per contra, learned AGA for the State vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application and supported the orders impugned. 6. Precise query has been made before learned AGA that whether any sanction has been sought by the learned court concerned before summoning the applicant vide order dated 05.02.2024, the same has been replied that there is hardly any averment or material available with regard to grant of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. 7. After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties, it is crystal clear that the allegation extended against the applicant, was of the time when he was discharging his duties as a Government servant and as such, as per the mandatory provisions defined under Section 197 of Cr.P.C, the sanction must be accorded and without receiving the same, summoning order has been passed against the applicant which is not sustainable in the eye of law and as such, the same is liable to be set aside. 8. In view of non-compliance of Section 197 Cr.P.C, entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.3003 of 2024 and impugned charge sheet dated 19.04.2023 as well as cognizance order dated 05.02.2024 submitted in Case crime No.25 of 2022 under Sections 427, 201 IPC and 153 The Railway Act, 1989 Police Station G.R.P. District Rampur against applicant- Junaid Khan are hereby set aside. 9. The instant application is, accordingly, allowed. October 10, 2025 Fhd NA528 No. 39401 of 2025 2 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad