- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30754-DB WA No. 1129 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 1129 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MOHAN KUMAR A S/O LATE ASHWATHAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/A 2ND CROSS, 6TH BLOCK, RT NAGAR, BENGALURU- 560032 …APPELLANT (BY SRI MURTHY D. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SUBAIR K M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001 Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30754-DB WA No. 1129 of 2025 2. THE SPECIAL SECRETARY POLICE SERVICES HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 3. UNDER SECRETARY POLICE SERVICES HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU- 560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN W.P. No.24169/2024 (GM-RES), ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.05.2025 IN WP No.24169/2024 (GM-RES) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30754-DB WA No. 1129 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU ,CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU,CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. Issue notice. 2. Mr. K.S. Harish, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents. 3. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in batch of three petitions [W.P.No.24171/2024, W.P.No.28337/2024 and W.P.No.24169/2024]. 4. The present appeal is confined to the impugned order insofar as it relates to W.P.No.24169/2024. The appellant had filed the said petition impugning an endorsement dated 30.08.2024, whereby the appellant's request for sanction of prosecution with - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30754-DB WA No. 1129 of 2025 respect of three police officials was denied. The contents of the endorsement as translated in english, read as under: "In connection with the above matter, the petitions referred to have been examined. It is not reasonable to seek the sanction of prosecution from the government before filing a private complaint in the court and without the direction of the esteemed court. Therefore, it is of the opinion that granting sanction of prosecution at this stage is not appropriate and hereby informs that your petition seeking sanction of prosecution has been rejected." 5. A plain reading of the said endorsement indicates that the appellant's request has been denied on the ground that the appellant had sought sanction prior to filing a private complaint and without any directions being issued by the Court in this regard. 6. It is the appellant's case that the reasons as articulated in the endorsement are not sustainable in law as there is no principle, which requires that a complaint against the police officials be registered and an order be obtained by the concerned Court. 7. The learned Single Judge had rejected the petition on the ground that unless the constitutional courts find that there is a clear case of malicious prosecution, no such proceedings could be lodged. The relevant extract of the reasons for rejecting the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30754-DB WA No. 1129 of 2025 appellant's challenge to the impugned endorsement is reproduced below: "The endorsement indicates that prior to registration of the crime and after registration of the crime, unless there is a direction from the Court, sanction cannot be granted. Though the endorsement is not happily worded, the petitioner is now wanting to seek prosecution against 3 persons, who according to him, were the reason for registration of the crime. One of whom is the Assistant commissioner of Police and the other Deputy Commissioner of Police. It is ununderstandable as to how the Assistant Commissioner of Police or the Deputy Commissioner of Police can be equated to the officer in-charge of the police station one Sri Ashwath Gowda. As observed hereinabove, even the officer-in-charge of the police station has performed his duty. Performance of duty, unless the constitutional Courts would find that it was a clear case of malicious prosecution, the Court is of the considered view that there cannot be proceedings for malicious prosecution. Therefore, the petition lacking in merit and for the manifold reasons rendered in the companion petition stands rejected." 8. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that he does not seek to prosecute the police officials under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [the P&C Act]. But seeks the sanction under Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 [the KP Act]. 9. The appellant also states that he has filed a suit against the concerned police officials, but cannot proceed without the said sanction. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30754-DB WA No. 1129 of 2025 10. We may note the observations made by the Supreme Court in G.C. Manjunath and others v. Seetaram:(2025) 5 SCC 390, which was rendered in the context of Section 170 of the KP Act. In the said decision, the Court has observed as under: "33. A plain reading of Section 170 of the Police Act reveals that the legislature, in its wisdom, has sought to afford a statutory safeguard to certain public functionaries, including Commissioners, Magistrates, Police Officers, and Reserve Police Officers. The provision is categorical in its stipulation that where any offence is alleged to have been committed, or any wrong alleged to have been occasioned, by such officials in the discharge of their duties or in the exercise of their lawful authority, no court shall entertain any prosecution or suit against them without the prior sanction of the Government. Importantly, the protective umbrella of Section 170 is not confined solely to acts strictly within the bounds of authority but extends to acts done ostensibly in excess of such authority, so long as there exists a reasonable nexus between the act complained of and the discharge of official functions. 34. A careful reading of Section 197CrPC unequivocally delineates a statutory bar on the Court's jurisdiction to take cognizance of offences alleged against public servants, save without the prior sanction of the appropriate Government. The essential precondition for the applicability of this provision is that the alleged offence must have been committed by the public servant while acting in the discharge of, or purported discharge of, their official duties. The protective mantle of Section 197CrPC, however, is not absolute; it does not extend to acts that are manifestly beyond the scope of official duty or wholly unconnected thereto. Acts bereft of any reasonable nexus to official functions fall outside the ambit of this safeguard and do not attract the bar imposed under Section 197CrPC. 35. Both the aforesaid provisions serve a similar protective function. While Section 170 of the Police Act - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30754-DB WA No. 1129 of 2025 mandates prior sanction for prosecuting a public official for “acts done under colour of, or in excess of, such duty or authority”, Section 197CrPC requires prior sanction where a public official is accused of having committed “any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty”. The underlying rationale of both these statutory provisions is to safeguard public functionaries from frivolous or vexatious prosecution for actions undertaken in good faith in the discharge of, or purported discharge of, their official duties, thereby ensuring that the fear of litigation does not impede the efficient functioning of public administration." 11. It would also be relevant to refer to Section 170 of the KP Act, which is set out below: "170. Suits or prosecutions in respect of acts done under colour of duty as aforesaid not to be entertained without sanction of Government.—(1) In any case of alleged offence by the Commissioner, a Magistrate, Police Officer or Reserve Police Officer or other person, or of a wrong alleged to have been done by such Commissioner, Magistrate, Police Officer or Reserve Police Officer or other person, by any act done under colour or in excess of any such duty or authority as aforesaid, or wherein it shall appear to the court that the offence or wrong if committed or done was of the character aforesaid, the prosecution or suit shall not be entertained except with the previous sanction of the Government. (2) In the case of an intended suit on account of such a wrong as aforesaid, the person intending to sue shall be bound to give to the alleged wrongdoer one month’s notice at least of the intended suit with sufficient description of the wrong complained of, failing which such suit shall be dismissed. (3) The plaint shall set forth that a notice as aforesaid has been served on the defendant and the date of such - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30754-DB WA No. 1129 of 2025 service, and shall state whether any, and if so, what tender of amends has been made by the defendant. A copy of the said notice shall be annexed to the plaint endorsed or accompanied with a declaration by the plaintiff of the time and manner of service thereof." 12. Section 170 of the KP Act also requires certain other conditions to be complied with and obtaining sanction does not absolve the compliance of the said conditions. 13. We note that the impugned endorsement has not considered the relevant provisions of the KP Act. The impugned order also does not reflect the contentions advanced by the appellant on the strength of the provisions of Section 170 of the KP Act. 14. In view of the above, we consider it apposite to set aside the impugned order and the impugned endorsement and remand the matter to respondent No.1 to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the appellant’s request for sanction and nothing in this order should be construed as such. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30754-DB WA No. 1129 of 2025 15. The concerned authorities shall also examine the appellant’s request under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 16. The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE KPS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29