Custodial Acts of Assault Do Not Constitute 'Official Duty' Under Section 197 CrPC: MP High Court - 2025-12-05

Behind Bars: High Court Strips Immunity Shield from Police in Custodial Assault Case

In a significant ruling clarifying the boundaries of police authority, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior has reaffirmed that custodial violence—specifically acts of assault, torture, and degradation—cannot be camouflaged as the "discharge of official duty."

The case, adjudicated by Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta, centered on a petition filed by a police officer accused of brutalizing citizens inside a police station. The judgment serves as a stern reminder that the protection granted to public servants under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 218 of the BNSS ) is not a permit for impunity.

The Spark of Conflict

The dispute stems from an October 2019 incident in Sheopur. The complainant, Pooja Kushwah, alleged that her brother was subjected to horrific abuse by local police officers after a minor altercation. According to the complaint, officers not only assaulted the brother but also detained him, subjected him to degrading treatment, and later assaulted the complainant herself when she attempted to inquire about his condition at the station.

Despite multiple attempts to register the grievance with higher authorities—including the Superintendent of Police and the Ministry of Home Affairs—the legal process faltered until a private complaint was eventually admitted by the trial court.

The Argument for Immunity

The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector, sought to quash the proceedings by invoking Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., arguing that because the events occurred while the officers were on duty, they were immune from prosecution without prior government sanction. They asserted that the complainant’s family had itself engaged in unlawful behavior, leading to a scuffle which necessitated police intervention.

Conversely, the argument for the respondent underscored the fundamental illegality of the acts. They contended that no amount of official duty can authorize the systematic beating and humiliation of citizens in a police lockup.

Legal Analysis: The Limits of 'Duty'

Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta’s analysis meticulously dismantled the claim of immunity by highlighting that the law requires a "reasonable connection" between the impugned act and the official duty performed. Referring to the landmark ruling in * P.P. Unnikrishnan v. Puttiyottil Alikutty *, the Court emphasized that assault inside a lockup is not a professional duty unless performed in clear self-defense or dire necessity.

The Court noted that at the time of the incident, the victims were not even legal detainees in any ongoing case. Consequently, the violence inflicted upon them was an act of personal aggression, not an official action.

Key Observations

The judgment offers piercing insights into the misuse of legal protections:

• On the nature of illegal acts: "The protection is not absolute. The Central Test is whether the impugned act bears a reasonable connection with 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."
• On custodial violence: "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."
• On the role of the judiciary: "This Court finds no merit in the contention of the petitioners that the complaint is barred for want of sanction under Section 197 CrPC ."

A Clear Path Forward

The High Court’s decision to dismiss the petition ensures that the trial court can proceed with the criminal case against the officers. For legal practitioners, this ruling serves as a vital precedent, reinforcing that the "sanction" requirement is intended to protect officers from harassment in the course of duty—not to act as a permanent barricade against those seeking justice for state-sanctioned abuse.

As the trial moves forward in the court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, the message remains clear: the badge and the uniform are not shields against accountability for human rights violations.