Back
No Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC for Police Assault Beyond Duty:
The has firmly ruled that a police constable cannot claim the shield of prosecution sanction under when his actions clearly stray beyond the bounds of . Dismissing a petition by Constable Vinod Kumar, Justice Ravi Chirania held that locking a detainee inside a court room and assaulting him with a stick is an act so far removed from lawful police work that no prior sanction is required before taking .
A Protest That Turned Violent
The case stems from an incident on , when Sakhi Mohammed, a social worker from Manakthedi in Hanumangarh district, was allegedly taken forcibly by police, illegally detained, and tortured. The detention sparked a public protest. During the protest, the complainant was locked inside the , where Constable Vinod Kumar allegedly gave him severe beatings with a stick, causing a fracture in his leg.
An FIR (No. 487/2018) was registered against the constable under . The police, however, filed a . The complainant filed a , and the trial court took on . This order was upheld by the on , prompting the constable to move the High Court under .
The Core Legal Question: When Is Sanction Required?
The petitioner’s counsel, , argued that as a public servant performing his official duties during a protest, the constable was entitled to protection under Section 197 CrPC. She contended that both lower courts had erred in taking without the mandatory previous sanction from the government.
The Public Prosecutor and the complainant’s counsel, , countered that the constable’s act—locking the complainant in the court chamber and assaulting him—could never be considered part of any . They pointed to the specific finding of the that the act was “by no stretch of imagination” performed in discharge of official functions.
Court’s Analysis: Has Clear Boundaries
Justice Chirania drew extensively on the ’s recent judgment in Suneeti Toteja v. State of U.P. & Anr. (2025 INSC 267), which reiterated that the protection under Section 197 CrPC applies only when the alleged offence is committed “while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of .” The court also referred to the co-ordinate bench decision in , which held that a police officer must first demonstrate that his actions were authorized before claiming such protection.
Examining the facts, the High Court found that the complainant’s allegations—supported by independent witnesses and medical evidence—established that Constable Vinod Kumar had acted entirely on his own. The court noted: “The complainant levelled the allegation against the petitioner only and not against any other police personnel which makes it amply clear that only petitioner acted beyond his .”
Key Observations
“The conduct of the petitioner of giving severe beatings to the complainant by locking him inside the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate… cannot be said to be an act done in discharge of his official duties in the capacity of a police constable at that time along with other persons.”
“Section 197 CrPC would not apply to a case if a public servant is accused of any offence which is or not connected to the discharge of his or her .” (citing Suneeti Toteja )
“Only petitioner acted beyond his .”
Decision: No Infirmity, Petition Dismissed
Concluding that there was no legal infirmity in the orders of the trial court or the , Justice Chirania dismissed the petition. The ruling makes it clear that police officers cannot use Section 197 CrPC as a blanket shield for or acts that clearly exceed their lawful authority. The message from the High Court is unambiguous: when a uniform is used to commit a crime rather than to uphold the law, the ordinary criminal process must take its course without the hurdle of prior sanction.
All pending applications were disposed of.
