Allahabad HC Rejects Lady Constable Shivani Joshi's Discharge Plea, Says Custodial Violence Not Official Duty

Allahabad HC Rejects Lady Constable Shivani Joshi's Discharge Plea, Says Custodial Violence Not Official Duty

The Allahabad High Court has firmly ruled that police officers accused of brutal custodial violence, including molestation and robbery, cannot seek the protective shield of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( CrPC ), which requires prior government sanction before prosecuting public servants for acts done in official duty. Justice Madan Pal Singh, presiding over a single-judge bench, dismissed two applications filed by Lady Constable Shivani Joshi and other police personnel, who sought to quash criminal proceedings against them on the ground that they were entitled to discharge for want of sanction under Section 197 CrPC .

Case Background: From Investigation to Allegations of Brutality

The case has a tangled history rooted in two cross FIRs. The first FIR (No. 360/2021) was registered at Police Station Baberu, Banda, on the complaint of one Himachal Prasad against Keshav Prasad Yadav (the informant in the present case) and his family members. During investigation, police constables were deputed to serve notices under Section 41A CrPC to the accused. According to the police, at Village Padari, the accused persons allegedly assaulted the constables and snatched their mobile phones, leading to a second FIR (No. 158/2022) against 14 named persons, including the informant and his female family members.

However, the tables turned when the informant, Keshav Prasad Yadav—himself an advocate—filed a complaint alleging illegal assault, molestation, custodial violence, and false implication by the police personnel. This culminated in FIR No. 218/2022 against nine named police officers, including Lady Constable Shivani Joshi. The police initially filed a final report terming the allegations as an attempt to overawe the police, but the Special Judge, Banda, rejected the report, took cognizance, and summoned the officers for offences under Sections 147 , 148, 452, 323, 504, 354, 354-B, and 395 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ).

The Discharge Application and Trial Court's Rejection

The accused police officers moved a discharge application before the trial court, primarily arguing that the alleged acts were committed in the course of their official duties and that proceedings were barred in the absence of sanction under Section 197 CrPC . The Special Judge rejected the application, holding that the nature of the alleged offences—including brutal beatings and molestation—could not be treated as acts done in discharge of official duty. Aggrieved, the officers approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ).

Arguments Before the High Court

For the Applicants: Mr. Sushil Shukla, counsel for the police officers, contended that the applicants were discharging their official duties in connection with the investigation of FIR No. 360/2021. He argued that even if they exceeded their limits, sanction under Section 197 CrPC was still mandatory. He relied on a battery of Supreme Court precedents, including Abdul Wahab Ansari v. State of Bihar , B. Saha v. M.S. Kochar , Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. Pandey Ajay Bhushan , and G.C. Manjunath v. Seetaram (2025), to support the proposition that protection under Section 197 extends to acts purportedly done in official capacity.

For the Respondent/Opposite Party No. 2: Mr. I.K. Charturvedi, Senior Advocate, countered that the acts committed by the police officers—taking the informant and his family into custody, tying them, and inflicting severe blows on their thighs, buttocks, and calves—could never be termed police duty. He highlighted the detailed injuries found during a court-ordered medical examination, which showed extensive contusions on the bodies of the informant, his 60-year-old wife Savitri, his teenage daughters Prabha (17) and Shikha (16), and others. He further argued that since one of the charges was under Section 354 IPC (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), the Explanation to Section 197 (1) CrPC , inserted in 2013, expressly declares that no sanction is required for offences under Section 354 IPC . Additionally, he pointed out that the applicants had flouted the High Court's earlier order dated February 8, 2024, by which they were permitted to withdraw a previous petition with liberty to apply for bail, but instead of surrendering, they filed a discharge application.

High Court's Legal Analysis

Justice Madan Pal Singh delivered a scathing judgment, rejecting the applicants' contentions on multiple grounds.

1. Custodial Violence Not Official Duty: The Court examined the medical reports of the eight injured persons, which revealed horrifying details—massive contusions measuring up to 30x14 cm on buttocks and thighs, injuries consistent with victims being tied face down and beaten repeatedly. The Court observed:

> "Such violence committed by the applicants cannot be termed a part of police duty, it can only be described as a heinous crime nor can it be argued that the police merely overstepped their limits slightly in the course of an investigation. In the opinion of the Court, such police personnel like the applicants are not entitled to any protection as provided under Section 197 CrPC ."

The Court also noted the mala fide intention evident from the General Diary Entry prepared by the applicants, which claimed that the accused sustained injuries from falling during arrest. The Court found it "absolutely ridiculous" that all four would fall and start bleeding, and noted that it was only the trial court's order for a medical board examination that brought the true injuries to light.

2. Flouting of Court Orders: The Court found substance in the respondent's argument that the applicants had deliberately disobeyed the High Court's earlier order. Despite undertaking to surrender and seek bail, they had neither appeared before the trial court nor obtained bail, instead filing a discharge application to delay proceedings. The Court held that such persons who flout the process of law are not entitled to any relief under Section 482 CrPC .

3. Explanation to Section 197 (1) CrPC Bars Sanction for Section 354 IPC : The Court referred to the Explanation inserted by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, which declares that no sanction shall be required for offences under Sections 166A, 166B, 354, 354A-354D, 370, 375, 376, and related provisions. Since the charge-sheet included Section 354 IPC , the Court held that sanction was not required in any case.

> "One of the charging sections levelled against the applicants is Section 354 I.P.C. As such, in view of Explanation to Section 197 (1) Cr.P.C. no sanction is required in the case of the applicants, who is a public servant accused."

Key Observations from the Judgment

The Court made several pointed observations:

• On the nature of injuries: "Perusal of the aforesaid injuries sustained by the above mentioned injured including the informant reveals that the above injured were subjected to repeated beatings while in police custody at the station by the Police personnel including the applicants, after their hands and feet have been tied by a rope and laid face down, with blows struck specifically on the buttocks, thighs, and calves."

• On the GD entry: "It seems absolutely ridiculous; at the time of arrest, if all four fall and get injured, they will start bleeding. It was the trial court that ordered a medical board to conduct the medical examination of all eight injured persons, thereby bringing the aforementioned injuries to light."

• On the applicants' conduct: "This Court is of the considered opinion that the discharge application filed by the applicants before the trial court praying for protection as provided under Section 197 CrPC is not maintainable and such persons like the applicants, who have flouted the process of law deliberately, are not entitled to any relief from this Court."

Court's Decision

The High Court dismissed both criminal applications, holding that the trial court had not committed any error in rejecting the discharge application. The Court clarified that the judgments cited by the applicants were clearly distinguishable on facts. The impugned order dated September 27, 2024, was affirmed, and the proceedings in Special Sessions Trial No. 665 of 2023 before the Special Judge, Banda, will continue.

Implications

This judgment sends a strong message that police officers cannot hide behind the shield of Section 197 CrPC when accused of gross criminal acts like custodial violence and molestation. By explicitly applying the Explanation to Section 197 (1) CrPC , the High Court has reinforced that no sanction is needed for offences against women under Section 354 IPC , irrespective of the accused's status as a public servant. The ruling also underscores that courts will not entertain discharge applications from accused who have deliberately flouted legal processes.