Prior Sanction Under Section 197 Cr.P.C. Mandatory to Prosecute Government Doctor for Allegedly False Medico-Legal Report Prepared in Discharge of Official Duty: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Name: Dr. Rajesh Kumar Verma v. Manish
Date of Judgment: 14 August 2026
Citation: CRR-1011-2016
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that previous sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was mandatory before prosecuting a Government Medical Officer under Section 218 IPC for allegedly preparing a false medico-legal report when the examination and preparation of the report were undertaken in the discharge of his official duties. The decisive consideration for applying Section 197 Cr.P.C. is whether the act complained of bears a direct and reasonable nexus with the public servant’s official functions, and not whether the act was performed correctly, negligently, improperly or with an alleged oblique motive. The petitioner had medically examined the complainant pursuant to a competent court’s directions and had prepared the medico-legal report in his official capacity as a Medical Officer; therefore, even the alleged omission to record certain injuries was intrinsically and inseparably connected with his official duties. Whether the omission was deliberate and mala fide or merely an error of medical judgment was a matter of evidence for trial, but the court’s jurisdiction to take cognizance remained subject to the statutory requirement of prior sanction. Since no sanction had been obtained, the cognizance and consequent order framing charge suffered from a fundamental legal infirmity and could not be sustained.
Summary: The criminal revision petition was filed by Dr. Rajesh Kumar Verma challenging the order dated 3 February 2016 by which the trial court directed the framing of a charge against him under Section 218 IPC. The criminal complaint had originally been instituted under Sections 161, 165-A, 166, 167, 218, 219, 323, 330, 342, 506, 464, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, read with Sections 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The complainant alleged that a property dispute existed between his father and his paternal uncle, Lachhi Ram, who had conspired with private individuals and police officials to implicate him and his family in false criminal cases. In furtherance of the alleged conspiracy, FIR No. 270 dated 17 May 2003 was registered against the complainant under Sections 342, 363, 366-A, 376 and 34 IPC and the relevant provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act.
According to the complaint, the complainant was arrested from his residence and subjected to illegal detention and custodial torture to extract a false confession. He was subsequently produced before the petitioner, who was serving as a Government Medical Officer, for a medico-legal examination conducted pursuant to directions issued by the competent court. The petitioner examined him on 18 May 2003 and recorded in the medico-legal report that no fresh external injuries were found.
The complainant disputed the petitioner’s medical opinion, following which his father applied to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palwal, for a fresh examination by a Medical Board. The application was allowed on 19 May 2003, and the Medical Board examined the complainant on 21 May 2003. The Board recorded tenderness in the left middle finger, pain and a blackish contusion on the left foot, a reddish-black contusion in the left deltoid region and another contusion in the left buttock region. It assessed the probable duration of the injuries as between 24 and 96 hours.
On the basis of the Medical Board’s findings, the petitioner was accused of intentionally preparing a false medico-legal report by omitting the complainant’s injuries to extend undue favour to the police officials allegedly responsible for the custodial torture. The trial court consequently ordered the framing of a charge against him under Section 218 IPC.
The petitioner contended that the medico-legal examination and preparation of the report were performed in his official capacity as a Government Medical Officer. Therefore, regardless of whether the opinion recorded in the report was ultimately found to be correct, the alleged act had a direct connection with the discharge of his official duties. It was argued that prosecution without obtaining the mandatory previous sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was legally impermissible.
The respondent opposed the revision by arguing that the petitioner was not accused merely of committing an error of medical judgment but of deliberately preparing a false report to protect the police officials. Such deliberate misconduct, according to the respondent, could not be treated as an act performed in the bona fide discharge of official duties and, therefore, did not attract the protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C.
The High Court observed that the petitioner’s medical examination preceded the examination conducted by the Medical Board. It also noted that contusions may not always be immediately visible and can take between 24 and 48 hours, or longer in the case of deeper injuries, to become distinctly visible and measurable. Therefore, the difference between the petitioner’s opinion and the subsequent findings of the Medical Board could not, by itself, conclusively establish that the petitioner deliberately suppressed the injuries.
The Court clarified that the principal issue in the revision was not whether the petitioner had intentionally prepared an incorrect medico-legal report but whether the alleged act had been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties. Since conducting the court-directed medical examination and preparing the medico-legal report were integral components of the petitioner’s official functions, the alleged omission could not be separated from those duties. The requirement of sanction was consequently attracted even though the report was alleged to have been prepared improperly or with an oblique motive.
Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the criminal revision petition and set aside the trial court’s order dated 3 February 2016 directing the framing of a charge against the petitioner under Section 218 IPC. The Court concluded that the petitioner’s medico-legal examination of the complainant and preparation of the corresponding report were undertaken in his official capacity as a Government Medical Officer and bore a direct and reasonable nexus with the discharge of his official duties. Consequently, previous sanction from the competent authority under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was a condition precedent for the court to take cognizance. Since no such sanction had admittedly been obtained, the cognizance and order framing charge were legally unsustainable.