Assault, Torture, Illegal Detention & Custodial Violence Don’t Fall Under Official Duty U/S 197 CrPC: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Police Officer’s Petition

The High Court was considering a petition filed by a Police Officer under Section 482 of the CrPC.

The Single Bench of Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta held, “As from the above discussion it is clear that the complainant and her brother were not any accused or offender of any offence which had been registered prior to the instant incident. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that the alleged assault by the police officials was not the requirement/demand of the movement, therefore, the act of the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court does not fall under the discharge of official duties. If an Act is wholly unrelated to official duties, or is manifestly beyond the scope of official duty, then Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. does not apply. If a police officer exceeds his powers, protection under Section 197 relevant Police Act may apply but only if there is a reasonable connection between the act and official duty. Not every offence committed by a police officer automatically gets official-duty protection the impugned act must be reasonably connected to his duties.”

“The protection of Section 197 CrPC applies only when the alleged act is reasonably connected with the discharge of official duty. Acts of assault, torture, illegal detention, custodial violence, or “marpeet” inside the police station have repeatedly been held NOT to fall within the scope of official duty”, it added.

Advocate Arun Katare represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Manvardhan Singh Tomar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The complainant presented a written complaint before the trial court that the accused persons (police officers) surrounded her brother Dhirendra, and hurled filthy abuses. The accused/petitioner, along withthe other two accused, took him to the police station and hung him upside down. It was alleged that he was locked up and was also threatened that the accused persons would encounter him. The complainant also alleged that when she arrived at the police station and saw her brother Dhirendra in the lockup and his injuries, the first accused began abusing her and threatened to beat her with a stick. As per the complainant, she and her brother, Dhirendra, were harassed at the police station from that evening.

The complainant's mother informed the Superintendent of Police, but allegedly no action was taken. On the complaint filed by the complainant before the trial court, the accused were acquitted by the trial court of the charges under sections 341, 354 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code and cognisance of the offences under sections 294, 342, 323, 34 and 506 was taken against the accused. Thereafter, the presence of the accused was ensured, and the case was fixed for prosecution evidence. Meanwhile, an application was filed on behalf of the accused under section 218 of the BNSS 2023 (section 197 CrPC of the old Code), which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the revision, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the JMFC had dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. and assigned the reasoning that the JMFC did not have any jurisdiction to recall its own order. The same reasoning was given by the Sessions Court. In the obtained facts and circumstances, the Bench found that both the courts below had not committed any error in passing the impugned orders.

On the aspect of protection under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., the Bench noted that the petitioners, who are police officials, had approached the Court seeking quashing of the proceedings on the ground that the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant was not maintainable in the absence of prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bench further took note of the case of the complainant that Dhirendra was unlawfully detained, beaten and subjected to custodial violence by the petitioners inside the police station, causing injuries and humiliation.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench found that the complainant and her brother were not accused of any offence registered before the instant incident. The complainant and her brother were not required for interrogation or investigation at the time of the incident, nor was any offence registered earlier. There was only an altercation that took place between the petitioner/accused and the complainant and her brother, over which the aforesaid alleged assault was committed by the petitioner and other police officials.

The Bench thus concluded that the allegations of custodial beating and “marpeet” against the complainant could not, even prima facie, be said to form part of the petitioners’ official duties. Such acts, according to the Bench, were wholly illegal, and Section 197 CrPC offered no protection.

“Section 197’s protection arises only when there is “reasonable connection” with official duty which does not exist in cases of abuse, torture, false arrests, custodial violence, or false case registration. The protection under Section 197 is not automatic. It only applies if the act is committed “while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty. There must be a “reasonable connection” between the act and the relevant official duty. If such nexus is absent i.e. custodial torture, thirddegree treatment, abuse, false case filing, fabrication of evidence then protection fails”, the order read.

Thus, finding no merit in the contention of the petitioners that the complaint was barred for want of sanction under Section 197 CrPC, the Bench dismissed the petition. “The Trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made herein”, it ordered.

Cause Title: Smt. Mamta Gurjar v. Pooja Kushwah (Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-GWL:31772)

Click here to read/download Order