A question that arises almost every week in the trial courts has now been set at rest by the Supreme Court. Where a Magistrate is moved to direct registration of an FIR against a police officer or any other public servant, is previous sanction under Section 197 CrPC a condition precedent? It has been held, by a Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta in Anumandala Rajesh Reddy v. State of Karnataka, 2026 INSC 1039, that it is not. An order under Section 156(3) CrPC is a pre-cognizance step, and the protection of sanction is attracted only when cognizance is to be taken.
- Case: Sri Anumandala Rajesh Reddy v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
- Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 1039
- Arising out of: SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1137, 1138, 1139, 1751 and 4550 of 2025
- Bench: Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
- Date of judgment: 24 August 2026 (reported on 24 September 2026)
- Provisions: Sections 154, 156(3), 190, 197 and 200 CrPC — now Sections 173, 175(3), 210, 218 and 223 of the BNSS, 2023
- Result: Appeals allowed. Order of the High Court set aside. Investigation revived.
The Facts in Brief
A false implication in a criminal case was alleged by the complainant against certain police officials, the background being a commercial dispute. Illegal detention was alleged, and it was further alleged that his signatures were obtained under coercion upon documents by which his business interests were relinquished, and that his electronic devices were interfered with.
Complaints were made by him to the local police, and thereafter to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, the Director General and the Inspector General of Police. No action having followed, a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC was filed. The Magistrate directed registration of an FIR against four police officials by resort to Section 156(3) CrPC.
What the High Court Held
The FIR was quashed by the High Court of Karnataka upon two grounds.
- That the acts complained of had been done by the officials in the discharge of their official duty, and previous sanction under Section 197 CrPC was therefore a condition precedent to prosecution.
- That the guidelines laid down in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 287, had not been complied with, inasmuch as the Magistrate had been approached without exhausting the remedy under Section 154 CrPC.
The Holding of the Supreme Court
Both grounds have been rejected. The first has been answered upon the scheme of the Code itself. Cognizance is taken under Section 190 CrPC, and it is at that stage, and at that stage alone, that the bar of Section 197 operates. A direction under Section 156(3) precedes cognizance, and it is therefore untouched by the requirement of sanction.
The sequence contemplated by the statute was emphasised by the Court. Information of a cognizable offence is received, an FIR is registered, investigation follows, a police report is submitted, and only thereafter does the question of sanction and of cognizance arise. Any construction by which the registration of an FIR is made contingent upon previous sanction would invert that scheme, and it would leave the aggrieved citizen without remedy at the very threshold.
On the Priyanka Srivastava Guidelines
The second ground has been answered upon the facts. It was found that the police authorities had in substance been approached, and that the matter had thereafter been pursued before the superior police authorities. In such a case, it was held, no inference of a direct or casual invocation of Section 156(3) can be drawn.
A caution of wider importance was added. The safeguards evolved in Priyanka Srivastava were devised to check frivolous and vexatious applications. They are not to be applied as a matter of mere procedural formality, divorced from the peculiar circumstances of the case.
The Provisions, Old and New
The judgment has been rendered under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the corresponding provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, have also been noticed. The ratio applies equally under the new Sanhita.
| Subject | CrPC, 1973 | BNSS, 2023 |
|---|---|---|
| Information in cognizable cases | Section 154 | Section 173 |
| Direction by Magistrate to investigate | Section 156(3) | Section 175(3) |
| Cognizance of offences by Magistrate | Section 190 | Section 210 |
| Prosecution of Judges and public servants | Section 197 | Section 218 |
| Examination of complainant | Section 200 | Section 223 |
| Inherent powers of the High Court | Section 482 | Section 528 |
Operative Directions
- That the appeals were allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside.
- That the final report submitted on 20 September 2023 was directed to be reopened.
- That the investigation was directed to be resumed from the stage at which the final report had been submitted.
- That the Investigating Officer was directed to seek sanction, where warranted, if the offences are found to be made out and the acts are found to have been committed in the discharge of official duty.
Why the Ruling Matters
Three practical consequences follow, and they are of daily use at the Bar.
- A quashing petition on the ground of sanction is premature at the FIR stage. The plea of want of sanction is available when cognizance is proposed to be taken, and not before. Petitions under Section 482 CrPC, now Section 528 BNSS, founded solely upon absence of sanction against an FIR, stand considerably weakened.
- The protection of Section 197 is not a shield against investigation. Whether the act complained of was committed in the discharge of official duty is ordinarily a question that emerges from the material collected during investigation, and it is seldom capable of being answered at the threshold.
- Compliance with Priyanka Srivastava is to be tested in substance. Where representations have been made to the police and thereafter to the superior officers, a technical objection founded upon the absence of a formal Section 154(3) application is unlikely to prevail.
Read the Full Judgment
The judgment is reproduced below, and it may also be downloaded.
Download Judgment (PDF) Supreme Court Judgment Portal
Frequently Asked Questions
Is sanction under Section 197 CrPC required before an FIR is registered against a police officer?
No. It has been held in Anumandala Rajesh Reddy v. State of Karnataka, 2026 INSC 1039, that sanction is a condition precedent only to the taking of cognizance, and not to the registration of an FIR or to the conduct of investigation.
Is an order under Section 156(3) CrPC an order taking cognizance?
No. Such an order is a pre-cognizance step. Cognizance is taken under Section 190 CrPC, which corresponds to Section 210 of the BNSS, 2023.
Does the ruling apply under the BNSS, 2023?
Yes. Section 156(3) corresponds to Section 175(3), and Section 197 corresponds to Section 218 of the BNSS. The reasoning has been expressed to hold good under the Sanhita as well.
What remains of the Priyanka Srivastava guidelines?
They remain good law as a check upon frivolous applications, but compliance is to be judged in substance. Where the police and the superior officers were approached before the Magistrate was moved, the requirement is satisfied.
At what stage, then, is sanction to be obtained?
At the conclusion of investigation, where the offences are found to be made out and the acts are found to have been done in the discharge of official duty, sanction is to be sought before cognizance is taken.
Case: Sri Anumandala Rajesh Reddy v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 INSC 1039, decided by Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
