Custodial torture is not protected under Section 197 Cr.P.C as it exceeds the official duty parameters.

O R D E R

The accused in C.C No.9/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Andrott, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against him in the said case. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 323 , 341, 506(i) and 296(i) I.P.C.

2. The sum and substance of the allegation against the petitioner is that, on 25.08.2016, while working as the Sub Inspector of Police, Minicoy Police Station, he resorted to custodial torture upon the de facto complainant, a Doctor by profession. It is stated that there occurred a clash between the public and the police personnel in Minicoy island on 25.08.2016, leading to the hospitalisation of so many people injured in police action, and that the complainant/second respondent had gone to the Government Hospital, Minicoy, where such persons had been admitted, to console them and to restore peaceful atmosphere in the Island. At that time, the petitioner allegedly took the complainant into custody and resorted to physical torture and verbal abuses in the police lock up of Minicoy Police Station.

3. The complaint which the second respondent filed before the learned Magistrate in this regard was taken on to files after enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C, and summons was issued to the petitioner/accused to answer the charges in respect of the commission of the offences under Sections 323 , 341, 506(i) and

296(i) I.P.C.

4. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that the proceedings initiated against him by the learned Magistrate are vitiated for want of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. It is further contended that the cognizance taken for the offence under Section

296(i) I.P.C, is prima facie unsustainable.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Standing Counsel for Lakshadweep Administration.

6. As regards the contention of the petitioner that the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is vitiated due to want of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C, it has to be stated at the outset that custodial torture of accused or suspects by the officers of investigating agencies, are not protected by the provisions contained under Section 197 Cr.P.C, which are intended to afford immunity to those violations committed during the course of discharge of the official duty of the officers concerned. In the case on hand, the allegation against the petitioner is that he had taken the second respondent into custody at a time when the second respondent had been visiting the persons injured in a police action being treated in Government Hospital, Minicoy, and thereafter, subjected him to third degree measures of custodial torture in police lockup. By no stretch of imagination, it could be said that the aforesaid act attributed to the petitioner, is covered by the protection afforded by Section 197 Cr.P.C.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inManjunath G.C v. Seetharam [2025 KHC 7238] , and that of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Ajay Nath v. N.Shajitha Beevi [2025 KHC 295] in support of the argument that the alleged criminal act attributed to the petitioner has got the immunity conferred by Section 197 Cr.P.C. The argument in the above regard is totally unsustainable since the facts and circumstances of the cases dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court leading to the aforesaid decisions, are totally different from the facts and circumstances of this case. In Manjunath (supra), the allegation against the police officers pertained to their act of taking into custody a person whose name figured in the rowdy sheet of the police station concerned. It was alleged in that case that the said person was dra