Nationalised Bank Employee Cannot Claim Sanction Protection under Section 197 CrPC: Punjab and Haryana High Court Sets Aside Unreasoned Quashing of Summoning Order

Case Name: Vikas Bhardwaj v. S.K. Gupta

Date of Judgment: 21 August 2026

Citation: CRR-534-2009

Bench: Hon’ble Mr Justice Ramesh Chander Dimri

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that an employee of a nationalised bank is not entitled to the protection of prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, merely because such an employee may qualify as a public servant.

The protection under Section 197 CrPC is available only to a public servant who cannot be removed from office except by or with the sanction of the Government. Since an employee of a nationalised bank may be removed by the competent authority of the bank without obtaining the sanction of the Government, the essential statutory condition for invoking Section 197 is not satisfied.

The Court further held that a revisional court cannot set aside a summoning order through a sweeping observation that no offence is disclosed without examining the allegations contained in the complaint, the documents produced by the complainant and the pre-summoning evidence. A judicial conclusion unsupported by an analysis of the material on record is neither reasoned nor legally sustainable.

Summary: The petitioner, Vikas Bhardwaj, instituted a criminal complaint dated 18 December 2006 against the respondent, S.K. Gupta, under Sections 167 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The respondent was serving as the Chief Manager of the State Bank of India, Industrial Area Branch, Jalandhar. It was alleged that he had prepared an account statement relating to firms belonging to the petitioner and his father despite knowing or having reason to believe that the document was incorrect. The allegedly incorrect account statement was used as the basis for declaring the concerned account a non-performing asset.

The petitioner alleged that the respondent prepared the incorrect document with the intention of causing, or with the knowledge that it was likely to cause, injury to the petitioner and his father. On this basis, the petitioner sought the respondent’s prosecution under Section 167 IPC, read with Section 120-B IPC.

After recording the petitioner’s pre-summoning evidence, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar, passed an order dated 31 May 2008 summoning the respondent to face trial for the alleged offences.

The respondent challenged the summoning order before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. By judgment dated 7 November 2008, the Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition and set aside the summoning order.

The Additional Sessions Judge relied on two principal grounds. First, it held that the respondent was protected under Section 197 CrPC and could not be prosecuted without prior sanction. Secondly, it broadly observed that the complaint and the preliminary evidence, even if accepted at face value, did not disclose the commission of any offence.

The petitioner challenged that judgment before the High Court. He relied upon the Supreme Court’s decisions in K.Ch. Prasad v. J. Vanalatha Devi and S.K. Miglani v. State (NCT of Delhi) to contend that an employee of a nationalised bank cannot claim the protection of Section 197 CrPC.

The High Court examined the statutory language of Section 197 and observed that its protection is not available to every person who may be described as a public servant. The provision applies only when the concerned public servant is not removable from office except by or with the sanction of the Government.

Following K.Ch. Prasad, the Court held that even where an employee of a nationalised bank is treated as a public servant, Section 197 CrPC is not attracted if the employee can be removed by an authority other than the Government. The fact that the bank’s service regulations derive their authority from parliamentary legislation or were framed with governmental approval does not mean that the employee can be removed only by the Government.

The Court also relied upon S.K. Miglani, wherein the Supreme Court held that a nationalised bank employee who does not satisfy the requirement concerning removal from office cannot claim protection under Section 197 CrPC. Once that foundational condition is absent, it is unnecessary to examine whether the alleged act was performed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duties.

The respondent could not cite any contrary judgment establishing that Section 197 CrPC applied to an employee of a nationalised bank in such circumstances. The High Court, therefore, held that the Additional Sessions Judge’s conclusion requiring prior sanction was contrary to the governing law.

The High Court also found the second ground adopted by the Additional Sessions Judge unsustainable. The revisional court had merely stated that no offence was disclosed from the complaint and preliminary evidence. It did not examine the specific allegations, discuss the documents produced during pre-summoning evidence or explain why the ingredients of the alleged offences were not made out.

Accordingly, the High Court characterised the observations of the Additional Sessions Judge as sweeping, unreasoned and unsupported by the evidence. It held that the summoning order could not have been set aside on the basis of such general observations.

The High Court, however, did not conclusively decide whether the complaint and the pre-summoning evidence were sufficient to sustain the summoning order. Instead, it remanded the matter to the successor court of the Additional Sessions Judge for a fresh and reasoned determination on merits.

Decision: The High Court set aside the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, along with all consequential proceedings arising from it.

The matter was remanded to the successor court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, for fresh adjudication of the respondent’s revision petition against the summoning order dated 31 May 2008. The revisional court was directed to decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law after specifically considering the complaint and the pre-summoning evidence.