Custodial torture allegations require substantial evidence; mere testimony is insufficient, and government sanction is necessary for prosecuting police officers unless actions fall outside official duties.

C.S.DIAS,J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Crl.M.C.Nos.3817, 3818, 3773, 3782 & 3894 of 2022 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 26th day of November, 2025

COMMON ORDER

As these Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are filed assailing the common order in CMP Nos.5703, 5704, 5705, 5706 and 5707 of 2016 in C.C.No.15 of 2019 passed by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kayamkulam ('Trial Court', in short), taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ), as against the petitioners, these Crl.M.Cs. are disposed of by this common order.

2. Crime No.535 of 2016 is registered by the Vallikunnam Police Station against the five accused persons (2^nd respondent in each Crl.M.C., hereinafter referred to as 'complainants', for brevity) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 151, 153 and 506(ii) read with Section 149 of the IPC and Section 27 (2) read with Section 7 of the Arms Act . The complainants were arrested on 01.08.2016 – 02.08.2016 and were taken into police custody. Alleging that the complainants were subjected to custodial torture, they filed the above CMPs., against the petitioners, who are all police officers, who subjected the complainants to custodial torture and, thus, have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the . The learned Magistrate, by the impugned common order, after examining the petitioner in CMP No.5703 of 2016, prima facie, concluded that the petitioners have subjected the complainants to custodial torture. As the offences were allegedly committed not in discharge of the official duty, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under and 324 read with of the and numbered the case as C.C.No.15 of 2019, and issued summons to the petitioners. The impugned common order is erroneous and wrong.

Hence, these Crl.M.Cs.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent in Crl.M.C.Nos.3817, 3818 and 3773 of 2022.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that, the complainants were subjected to medical examination before they were produced before the Magistrate and none of them suffered any injury. Similarly, the complainants did not complain about custodial torture to the learned Magistrate. Furthermore, it was solely on the basis of the sworn statement of the complainant in CMP No.5703 of 2016, that cognizance of the offences were taken in the five complaints by the common order, and one case has been registered. There is no material to arrive at a conclusion that the complainants were subjected to custodial torture. Therefore, the offences under Sections 323 and 324 are not attracted. The learned counsel also contends that, as the complainants were in police custody in Crime No.535 of 2016, the alleged action of the petitioners were only in discharge of their official duties. The learned counsel relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manjunath G.C. and others v. Seetaram [(2025) 5 SCC 390] in support of his contention that, even if there is any police excess, the same can only fall within the discharge of their official functions. Therefore, sanction for prosecution is mandatory. According to him, none of the contentions were considered by the Trial Court. Hence, the common order may be quashed.

5. The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondents in the three cases opposes the Crl.M.Cs. She submits that since t