'Brazen Violation Of Article 21': MP Court Directs FIR Against 4 Cops For Allegedly Trespassing Complainant's Home, Assaulting Women & Minor
A Magistrate Court in Datia, Madhya Pradesh has directed registration of an FIR against four police officers for allegedly trespassing into a residence and assaulting family members–including a woman and a minor child, observing that their actions bore no rational or reasonable nexus with the discharge of official duties and were rather a brazen violation of law.The order was passed by...
A Magistrate Court in Datia, Madhya Pradesh has directed registration of an FIR against four police officers for allegedly trespassing into a residence and assaulting family members–including a woman and a minor child, observing that their actions bore no rational or reasonable nexus with the discharge of official duties and were rather a brazen violation of law.
The order was passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Vijitashwa Pushkar in the complainant's application under Section 156(3) of CrPC, which empowers a magistrate to issue directions for registration of FIR, directing police to conduct an investigation into the cognizable offence, specifically if the local police refuses to do so.
The order stated:
"Forcing one's way into a private residence without a warrant, voluntarily causing hurt against women and a minor child are acts that bear no rational or reasonable nexus to any legitimate exercise of police power. They are not acts referable to official authority; they are, on the contrary, brazen violations of law and of the fundamental constitutional rights guaranteed to every citizen under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. No prior sanction is, therefore, required for directing investigation in the present matter".
Thus allowing Section 156(3) CrPC application, the magistrate court directed registration of an FIR against the four police officers, under Sections 452 and 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, on the basis of the allegations contained in the application and to conduct a fair, thorough and impartial investigation therein, submitting the final report to the concerned court without undue delay.
The court also made it "explicitly clear that non-compliance" with a lawful order passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is liable to be visited with proceedings for contempt of court as permissible in law.
Background
Per the complaint, on March 27, 2026, the police personnel allegedly entered the complainant's rented house in Datia without a warrant or written authorisation and assaulted him along with several family members. The police personnel also used abusive language.
The complainant alleged that a "brutal and indiscriminate assault" was unleashed upon the "complainant, his mother, aunt, sisters and the minor" by the personnel who allegedly by means of "kicks, fists and lathis". It was also alleged that complainant's mother, was struck upon the head with a lathi by the personnel causing her to bleed profusely and collapse.
Thereafter they were taken to the police station, where the assault allegedly continued. The complainant has alleged that a false case was thereafter registered against the complainant and his family members. It is further alleged that the video recordings captured by the family members of the complainant on their mobile phones were deleted by the police before the said devices were returned to them.
The complainant alleged that despite written complaints to the police authorities, no action was taken, prompting the complainant to approach the Magistrate Court under Section 156(3) CrPC.
The complainant had sought registration of FIR under IPC Sections 452, 323, 294, 147, 148 and 149.
While examining the allegations, the court declined to direct registration of offences under Section 294, which deals with obscenity in public places, observing that the alleged use of abusive language was used inside a private residence and not in a public place, which is an essential ingredient of the offence.
"The indispensable element of the offence being absent, the ingredients of Section 294 IPC are not prima facie made out. The prayer for registration of FIR under Section 294 IPC is accordingly not acceded to at this stage," the court said.
The court however, found sufficient grounds to direct registration of FIR for trespassing (Section 452) and voluntarily causing hurt (Section 323) with common intention (Section 34) of IPC.
Regarding objections that Section 197 CrPC bars prosecution against police officers if actions are done in discharge of official duty, the magistrate observed:
"This Court, upon careful consideration, is of the firm and considered opinion that the alleged acts - namely, forcibly entering a private residential dwelling without any search warrant or written authority, assaulting women and a minor child within the premises of their own home and confiscating mobile phones cannot, by any stretch of constitutional or legal reasoning, be characterised as acts performed "in discharge of official duty." Such acts are not only beyond the pale of official authority but are, in fact, in direct contradiction of it".
Relying on the Supreme Court decision of XXX v. State of Kerala & Ors, the bench reiterated that where the alleged actions are not reasonably connected with official duties, proceedings may be initiated in the ordinary course and prior sanction is not necessary.
The court said that it was satisfied that police investigation "is not merely desirable but absolutely indispensable" in the present matter after noting that the CCTV footage of the police station concerned pertaining to the relevant date and time requires immediate seizure, as it is likely to contain material evidence pertaining to the incident.
Further the video recordings allegedly deleted from the mobile phones of the complainant's family members may be recoverable through forensic examination by the Cyber Cell - a task entirely beyond the means and capacity of the complainant.
It also noted that the weapons and lathis allegedly employed in the commission of the assault require seizure from the persons of the accused. Further statements of the injured witnesses and the complainant require to be recorded and an independent site inspection is warranted.
The court said that the evidence requisite for establishment of the offences alleged is neither in the possession of the complainant nor can it be procured without the coercive assistance of the investigating authority.
With respect to offences of rioting and unlawful assembly under Sections 147, 148 and 149, the court said that the application revealed that the proposed accused are specifically identified only to the extent of four named individuals, while the remaining participants are described merely as "8- 10 unknown police personnel" without any particularisation of their individual roles or conduct; thus the offences were not prima facie established.
The matter is listed on June 16 for receipt of FIR copy.
Case Title: Yuvraj Singh Bundela v Arvind Bhadoriya [CR 293/2024]