The III Additional Chief Metropolitan of Bengaluru on 27/12/2016 had took cognizance of the case in P.C.R. No. 17214 of 2013 and gave an order against the appellant without taking the previous sanction from the Government as requires u/s 170 of the Karnataka Police Act  . Then the accused applicant had also file a case, Criminal Petition No. 319 of 2017 in Karnataka H.C on 31/01/2018,requesting to quash the impugned order given against him. Karnataka HC held that the Magistrate did not took the sanction keeping in mind the document received by the complainant and asked the accused appellant to file the case u/s 245 of Cr.P.C before the trial court for the discharge. Aggrieved by the decision of HC, accused appellant has filed a Criminal Appeal in the Hon’ble SC.

State of Orissa v. Ganesh Chandra Jew,(2004)8 SCC 40

Expression “official Duty” implies that the act or omission must be done by the Public Servant in course of his duty.

D.T. Virupakshappa v. C. Subash, (2015) 12 SCC 231

Court held that if the allegations are made in excess of the investigation made for the criminal case, then it would be counted to be connected under official duty. Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., HC have the power to quash the cases which are ex facie bad for the want of sanction .

Matajog Dubey v. H.C. Bihar , AIR 1956 SC 44

Court held that it is not compulsory to get the sanction of the govt. as soon as the complaint is lodged against a police officer.

Bakshish Singh Brarv. Gurmej Kaur, (1987) 4 SCC 663

Court held that sometimes it is not possible to seek for sanction at the preliminary stage of the case because of the fear of evidences getting damaged but then the sanction must be obtained at a later stage.

Appeal was allowed and Hon’ble Bench was of the view that the order given by HC is erroneous and HC should have set aside the order given by the Magistrate as the according to the recognized principle, sanction is important and necessary to be taken at any stage of the Case.