The Allahabad High Court has upheld the rejection of discharge applications filed by police personnel accused of repeatedly beating people in police custody and molesting women.

The Court said that such violence cannot be termed a part of police duty and can only be described as a crime.

A bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh observed that persons were allegedly subjected to repeated beatings in custody after their hands and feet were tied with a rope and they were laid face down.

The Court was hearing two connected applications filed by police personnel, including lady cop, challenging the trial court's September 27, 2024, order rejecting their discharge applications in a case arising from Police Station Baberu, District Banda.

The applicants had claimed protection under Section 197 CrPC, arguing that the alleged acts were committed in the course of official duties.

The High Court, however, found that the trial court had "not committed any error" in rejecting their discharge pleas and dismissed both applications as "devoid of merits".

Case in brief

An FIR was registered at the Police Station under Sections 147, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. During the investigation, Sub-Inspector Dileep Kumar Mishra issued notices under Section 41A of the CrPC to secure the accused's cooperation.

Four constables were sent to Village Padari to serve the notices. According to the prosecution case, the accused persons and their family members allegedly abused and assaulted the police constables, tore or snatched the notices, threw brickbats, and allegedly snatched the mobile phone of Constable Sukhbir Singh.

Following the incident, the police force was dispatched to the village. 4 women were arrested on the night of May 13, 2022, while 4 men, including an informant, were arrested the following day.

The informant subsequently alleged illegal assault, molestation, custodial violence, looting and false implication by police personnel.

Pursuant to an order on his Section 156(3) CrPC application, an FIR was registered against nine named and several unknown police personnel, including the present applicants.

When their discharge plea was rejected, they moved the High Court.

High Court's observations

The High Court examined the medical reports of the informant and his family members, which recorded multiple injuries, including contusions and swelling on their buttocks, thighs, legs, chest and other parts of the body. The Court observed:

"Perusal of the aforesaid injuries sustained by the above mentioned injured including the informant reveals that the above injured were subjected to repeated beatings while in police custody at the station by the Police personnel including the applicants, after their hands and feet have been tied by a rope and laid face down, with blows struck specifically on the buttocks, thighs, and calves".

The Bench then categorically held that such violence cannot be termed a part of police duty. It remarked thus:

"…it can only be described as a heinous crime nor can it be argued that the police merely overstepped their limits slightly in the course of an investigation".

It consequently held that police personnel involved in such conduct were not entitled to any protection as provided under Section 197 CrPC.

The Bench also examined a General Diary entry prepared by the police on May 14, 2022.

According to the entry, the informant had allegedly sustained a bleeding injury after falling to the ground during arrest, while three others had suffered blunt-force injuries. The High Court described this explanation as "absolutely ridiculous" that "at the time of arrest, if all four fall and get injured, they will start bleeding.

The Court noted that the trial court had ordered a Medical Board examination of all eight injured persons, which brought the injuries to light.

It was observed that otherwise, only the false report prepared by the police would have remained on record, potentially preventing the alleged crime against the injured persons from coming to light.

The police personnel argued that the alleged acts occurred while they were discharging their official duties and therefore prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC was mandatory.

The High Court rejected the plea in light of the nature of the alleged acts and injuries.

The Court also noted that the charge-sheet had been filed under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 452, 354 and 395 IPC, and cognizance had been taken by the trial court.

Significantly, Section 354 IPC was one of the charges. Referring to the Explanation to Section 197(1) CrPC, the Court noted that no sanction is required where a public servant is accused of an offence under Section 354 IPC. It remarked:

"As such, in view of Explanation to Section 197 (1) Cr.P.C. no sanction is required in the case of the applicants, who is a public servant accused".

The Court also noted that the applicants had earlier challenged the cognizance and summoning order before the High Court but withdrew that application on February 8, 2024, after seeking liberty to appear before the competent court and file appropriate bail applications.

Despite this, they neither surrendered before the trial court nor obtained bail before filing their discharge application. The High Court held that the discharge application seeking Section 197 protection was not maintainable in these circumstances.

Ultimately, the High Court confirmed the trial court's order rejecting the discharge applications and dismissed both criminal applications.

Case Title - Lady Constable Shivani Joshi and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and another and connected matter 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 694

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 694

Click Here To Read/Download Order