No Prior Sanction Needed To Prosecute Police In Custodial Violence Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a plea by two police constables over the alleged custodial death of a 24-year-old man, observing that no prior sanction is needed under Section 197 CrPC to prosecute police officers in custodial death/ violence cases. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 214]

For Context, Section 197 CrPC mandates that a government sanction is needed before any cognizance is taken against certain public servants while discharging their official duties, intended to protect them from malicious and frivolous prosecution. 

The bench of Justice Gajendra Singh observed that to apply the protection under Section 197 CrPC, there must be a reasonable nexus between the act complained of and the discharge of official functions.

In the present case, the bench noted that the actions of the accused policemen did not have a reasonable nexus with the discharge of their official duties, as they committed the said violence in the police station, while the deceased was called for interrogation in the scooter theft case. The bench emphasized:

"The above incident is not a result where revision petitioners were performing the duty to handle the violent mob and were justified in using the criminal force and exceeded their scope of use of force but it is a case where alleged use of force is when the deceased was in custody of the police in police station and there was no occasion to exercise the use of force or physical assault followed by various acts to cover up the incident". 

The deceased, Pankaj Vaishnav, belonging to the SC/ST community and employed in the Special Railway Magistrate's Court in Indore, was brought into the MIG police station in Indore on December 19, 2015, for interrogation on a scooter theft allegation. He later died that night in police custody, allegedly by suicide. 

Following the incident, an independent inquiry under Section 176 CrPC was initiated by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, concluding that the death was a case of culpable homicide.

Thereafter, a chargesheet was filed for abetment of suicide (Section 306), wrongful confinement (Section 342) and giving false evidence (Section 193) of IPC against two police constables and one station house officer. 

Rejecting the accused officers' plea for protection under Section 197 CrPC, the trial court observed that there was no entry regarding the deceased's custody or interrogation in the case diary. The Trial Court noted that the alleged acts could not be regarded as acts performed in discharge of their official duties.

The counsel for the accused men argued that the alleged acts were intrinsically connected with the discharge of their official duties and therefore they could not be prosecuted in the absence of prior government sanction. 

The court noted that use of force is justified in cases such as controlling violence situation, dispersing a mob or dealing with resistance during an arrest. However, in the present case, the deceased was already in custody and under the control of the authorities. 

The bench further reiterated the Apex Court's stance that custodial violence or death is one of the worst crimes in a civilised society and a violation of basic human rights.

Therefore, the revision was dismissed. 

Case Title: Rajkumar Dwivedi v State of Madhya Pradesh, CRR. No. 258 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 214

For Petitioners: Advocate Mukesh Kumawat

For State: Government Advocate Usha Chouhan

Click here to read/download the Order