The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a coherent nexus between the act complained of and the duty of the public servant, and the need for acts to be done bona fidely with a reasonable connection to the discharge of official duty.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

Question which this Court is called upon to answer is “whether the police officials after having committed excesses (by brutally beating the detenues) can successfully claim protection under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter to be referred as “the Code”)”?

2. Through the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., correctness of the order dated 28.10.2017 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Faridabad, has been assailed.

3. Petitioners are the police officials. In this petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that sanction of competent authority under Section 197 of the Code has not been sought and, therefore, the Court erred in initiating the proceedings and summoning the petitioners.

4. At this stage, it would be appropriate to reproduce the averments made in para 2 of the complaint filed under Sections 323, 326, 506, 166 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as under:-

“2. That the complainant, Shri Jarish son of Shri Riashat R/o Raipur Kalan, District Faridabad with other co-accused were arrested in the case FIR No.83 dated 17.07.2014 by the police of P.P. Chandpur, Faridabad. In the custody of the said police they were confined on the night of 17-07-2014 where the accused persons abused the complainant-Jarish and Rajuddin in filthy language and they started beating the accused persons. The accused No.1 gave beatings to the complainant Jarish and the accused No.2 started beating and Rajuddin without any reason and rhyme. The accused No.1 gave kicks, punch and Danda blows to the complainant resultantly the complainant started bleeding from his left ear and he sustained injuries on his nose and left side tooth. The accused No.2 gave Danda blow, kicks and punch blows to Shri Rajuddin resultantly he sustained injuries on his hand and wrist. The complainant and Shri Rajuddin badly cried but the accused persons did not stop. The accused persons threatened the complainant and Shri Rajuddin if they take any action against them then the accused persons will falsely implicate in some other heinous crimes or alternatively the accused persons will kill the complainant and Shri Rajuddin. The complainant was released on bail in the said case.”

5. It has come in evidence that there was scuffle between petitioners and others which led to registration of FIR No.83 dated 17.07.2014. Complainant-respondent alongwith others were called for investigation. They were then taken into custody and police officials brutally beat them at the Police Station when they were in lock up. In support of the complaint, respondent-Jarish Khan has appeared as CW1, Rajuddin has appeared as CW2 and examined Dr. Vandana, Dr. Manish, Dr. Krishan as CW3, CW5 and CW6 respectively in order to prove their medico legal report.

6. Learned Judicial Magistrate refused to summon, however, learned Additional Session Judge, as noticed above summoned the petitioners under Sections 323, 325, 506, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. As noticed above, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the order passed by the learned Additional Session Judge summoning the petitioners is not sustainable in view of lack of prior sanction as required under Section 197 of the Code.

Section 197 of the Code is extracted as under:-

“197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.—(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction-

(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;

(b) in the case of a person who is employed or,