Om Prakash Yadav vs Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay (2024) - Case Analysis

Introduction of Om Prakash Yadav vs Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay (2024)

The case of Om Prakash Yadav vs Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay (2024) centres around the question of whether public servants accused of fabricating evidence to shield a murder suspect can claim protection under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court clarified that protection under Section 197 does not apply when the actions in question are unrelated to official duties. The Supreme Court on 13th December, 2024 directed the continuation of the trial against the accused officials.

Download Om Prakash Yadav vs Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay 2024 PDF

Why in the Spotlight? - Om Prakash Yadav vs Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay (2024)

The 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra ruled that the public servants cannot misuse their position to commit unlawful acts and then seek protection under the guise of official duty. 

Historical Context and Facts of Om Prakash Yadav vs Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay (2024)

The case at hand revolves around the complex set of events and legal proceedings with multiple FIRs filed, charges pressed and conflicting legal actions across different jurisdictions. The following are the brief facts of the case -

FIR and Initial Investigation in Firozabad

The Appellant Om Prakash Yadav filed a First Information Report (FIR) at Dakshin Police Station, Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh on 12th October 2007. The FIR accused Surender Singh Gurjar, Veerbhan Gurjar, Ashok Dixit, Pappu Dixit, Sanjay Dixit and others of killing the brother of the Appellant Suman Prakash Yadav and injuring his 4 ½ year-old nephew Harsh through indiscriminate gunfire near the Suhagnagar Crossing. The Appellant’s brother worked as a teacher at Tilak Inter College, Firozabad.

Second FIR Registered in Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh)

On 12th October 2007 another FIR was registered at Murar Police Station, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh for an offence under Section 34 of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act. The First Information Report involved Ashok Dixit who was one of the accused in the Firozabad case for carrying 12 bottles of illegal liquor. On 26th October 2007 a charge sheet was filed against Ashok Dixit in this case.

Investigation and Filing of Charge Sheets

A charge sheet was filed on 5th January 2008 against 12 individuals including Ashok Dixit and others. However, investigations were still ongoing for certain individuals, including Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay who were allegedly involved in shielding Ashok Dixit.

Request for Stay of Proceedings in Gwalior

The officer in Firozabad filed an application on 30th January 2008 requesting that the proceedings in Gwalior be stayed. The officer cited concerns that the accused could use the Excise Act case to create an alibi for the Firozabad murder.

Ruling of the CJM Gwalior

The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Gwalior initially ordered an inquiry but later rejected the application to stay proceedings on 23rd February 2008. Subsequently, the IO in Firozabad moved for a non-bailable warrant against the involved Respondents. However, the Respondents including officials from Gwalior were allegedly absconding.

Request for Sanction and Further Investigation

A request was made for sanction to prosecute the Respondents on 2nd May 2008 but the D.I.G. of Gwalior replied that the sanction could not be granted until the trial in Gwalior had concluded. 

Decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Appellant filed a petition on 28th August 2008 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and sought to quash or stay the proceedings in Gwalior. The High Court stayed the proceedings on 25th August 2009 considering the impact of the proceedings in Gwalior on the Firozabad case.

Appeal in the Supreme Court

Aggrieved by the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court. The Appellant challenged the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

Issue addressed in Om Prakash Yadav vs Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay (2024)

The main question which was addressed in this case was whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, could have taken cognizance of the charge sheets against the Respondents without the necessary sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the CrPC and whether their actions were committed while performing their official duties?

Legal Provisions involved in Om Prakash Yadav vs Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay (2024)

In Om Prakash Yadav vs Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay case Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code played a significant role. The following is the legal analysis of this provision -

Section 197 of CrPC: Prosecution of Judges and Public Servants

Section 197 deals with the prosecution of Judges and Public Servants. (Now Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) The provision requires sanction from the government before prosecuting public servants for acts done in the discharge of their official duties.

Judgment and Impact of Om Prakash Yadav vs Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay (2024)

The 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra addressed the principles relating to Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Supreme Court examined when acts can be considered as part of an official duties of the Public Servant and when such protection under Section 197 is applicable. The case involved police officials accused of fabricating evidence to protect a murder suspect. 

The Supreme Court noted that the alleged acts of fabricating evidence were not related to their official duties and the protection under Section 197 CrPC was not applicable. The Court highlighted the following key principles -

• The purpose of Section 197 CrPC is to protect public servants from frivolous or vexatious criminal proceedings when they are acting in their official capacity.
• Whether the act was done ‘in the course of official duty’ is an important factor in deciding the applicability of Section 197. Acts not related to official duties such as fabricating evidence cannot be protected.
• The Court also explained that public servants can only claim protection if their actions are directly linked to their official duties.

The Supreme Court in Om Prakash Yadav vs Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay rejected the claim for protection under Section 197 and allowed the trial to proceed against the police officials involved. The decision made clear that public servants cannot misuse their position to commit unlawful acts and then seek protection under the guise of official duty.

Thus, the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and directed the trial to continue.

Conclusion

In Om Prakash Yadav vs Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay (2024) the Supreme Court ruled that the public servants cannot misuse their position to commit unlawful acts and then seek protection under the guise of official duty. The Court overturned the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and directed the trial to continue.