Refusal of Sanction to Prosecute Police Officer for Acts in 'Official Duty' Upheld; Limited Judicial Review if Mind Applied by Sanctioning Authority: Kerala HC - 2024-11-06

Kerala High Court Upholds Government's Refusal to Sanction Prosecution of Police Officer in Custodial Death Allegation Case

Kochi: The Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling, has dismissed a writ petition challenging the government's decision to refuse sanction for the prosecution of a police officer implicated in a private complaint following the alleged custodial death of a man in 2001. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas underscored the limited scope of judicial review in matters of sanction, emphasizing that the court would not interfere if the sanctioning authority has applied its mind and the decision is not marred by extraneous considerations.

Case Background: A Two-Decade Legal Battle

The case originates from the death of Sri. Narayanan Nair on September 2, 2001. His brother, the original petitioner (now deceased and represented by another brother), alleged that Narayanan Nair died due to police atrocities committed on September 1, 2001. It was claimed that the third respondent, then Sub Inspector of Police at Nilambur Police Station, along with other policemen, assaulted Narayanan Nair at a bus stop. Despite being taken to a hospital, he succumbed to his injuries.

A police case (FIR No.653/2001, later C.C. No.1441/2003) was registered for unnatural death, with the postmortem report opining death due to acute myocardial infarction. This case is reportedly still pending.

Separately, the deceased's brother filed a private complaint (Crl.M.P. No.12398/2003) alleging murder (Section 302 IPC). After a protracted legal journey, the High Court in Crl.M.C No.407/2016 quashed this private complaint (then C.C. No.197/2011), ruling that sanction to prosecute the police officer was essential as the alleged acts were committed in the discharge of official duties. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Subsequently, the petitioners sought sanction from the government to prosecute the third respondent based on the private complaint. By an order dated July 2, 2018 (Ext.P10), the government refused sanction, leading to the present writ petition.

Arguments Before the Court

Petitioner's Stance: The petitioner, represented by Sri Rajit , argued that the death was a direct result of a brutal assault by the police officer. It was contended that sanction was, in fact, not required given the nature of the assault, or alternatively, was denied due to the officer's influence. The petitioner alleged that the sanctioning authority failed to consider relevant factors from the private complaint, such as differing accounts of the place of occurrence, purposeful delay in postmortem, and failure to register a crime based on the deceased's hospital statement.

Respondents' Defense: The State Public Prosecutor, Sri Suresh P., maintained that all materials, including a detailed police report (Ext.P11), were considered by the sanctioning authority.

Sri B.G.Harindranath, Senior Counsel for the third respondent (the police officer), argued that the postmortem clearly indicated death by heart attack with no significant injuries. He submitted that the High Court could not direct the grant of sanction, referencing Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat . He asserted that the sanctioning authority had considered all necessary parameters and the court should not interfere with the refusal.

Court's Reasoning: Sanctity of Sanction and Scope of Judicial Review

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas began by reiterating the importance of prosecution sanction.

"The concept of prosecution sanction is not an idle formality or an unnecessary exercise, but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to public servants against frivolous prosecutions," the Court observed, citing Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh .

The judgment emphasized that the discretion to grant or refuse sanction lies absolutely with the sanctioning authority. Judicial interference is warranted only if this discretion is tainted by extraneous considerations or if there's a clear non-application of mind.

"If the discretion of the sanctioning authority is not affected by any extraneous considerations and the authority has applied its mind independently to arrive at the conclusion, then this Court ought not to interfere with an order granting or refusing sanction."

The Court noted that it had previously been established (in Crl.M.C No.407/2016) that the third respondent was acting in the discharge of his official duties during the incident. Therefore, the review was confined to the decision-making process for refusing sanction.

Addressing Specific Contentions:

* Application of Mind: The Court found that the sanctioning authority (vide Ext.P10) had considered the petitioner's application and the State Police Chief's report (Ext.P11), which itself was based on an Inspector General's detailed report. This report recommended against sanction, noting the pending police case and the need to protect public servants from malicious prosecution for acts done in official capacity. The authority concluded the death was due to a heart attack and the incident occurred while the officer was dispersing a crowd to maintain law and order.

* Clerical Error in Crime Number: The impugned order (Ext.P10) mistakenly referred to the police case crime number (Crime No.653/2001) instead of the private complaint for which sanction was sought. The Court accepted the government's explanation in a counter-affidavit that this was a mere "clerical mistake" and "not a reflection of non-application of mind," as the entire consideration process was centered on the private complaint.

* Omitted Considerations by Sanctioning Authority: The petitioner's arguments regarding delayed postmortem, non-registration of a separate FIR based on the deceased's statement, and differences between the police charge and private complaint were deemed "not germane to the issue of sanction." The Court also noted the existing prosecution (C.C. No.1441/2003) against the officer for the alleged assault.

"Considering the nature and scope of interference against orders, refusing sanction to prosecute a public servant, this Court is of the view that the impugned order has been passed after due application of mind, by considering all the relevant materials..." the Court stated.

Final Decision

The High Court concluded that the order refusing sanction to prosecute the third respondent in the private complaint did not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed for lack of merit, bringing another chapter in this long-standing legal dispute to a close, while affirming the principles guiding the grant and review of prosecution sanctions for public servants.