Police Uniform Not A License To Assault Innocent Citizens; No Protection U/S 197 CrPC For Acts Beyond Official Duty: Allahabad HC

Refusing relief to 4 Uttar Pradesh police officials accused of abusing, assaulting, and unlawfully confining a doctor and his companions at a police post, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that acts falling outside the scope of a public servant's official duties do not require prior sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the CrPC. “Merely because the applicants are police officials, it would not provide any shield to the applicants. Police uniform is not license to assault innocent citizens,” a bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh remarked as it prima facie found a case against the accused police officials booked under Sections 323, 342, 394 IPC. Essentially, it was alleged that on June 28, 022, when the complainant, a doctor by profession, was returning from Kanpur to Farrukhabad with his companions, his car accidentally brushed against a vehicle belonging to the applicants, who were police officials posted with the SOG in Kannauj. Subsequently, the accused-cops allegedly intercepted the complainant's car, then abused and assaulted him and his companions. Allegedly, they also damaged the doctor's mobile phone, snatching his gold chain and cash, and forcibly took them to the police post, where they were detained for about an hour and a half. Challenging the entire proceedings, including the summoning order passed in January 2024, the accused (Police officials) approached the High Court, asserting that the complainant was driving rashly and had collided with their vehicle. They claimed that they had merely issued a warning to them, but the complainant, in retaliation, filed a false complaint against them. It was also their argument that they cannot be prosecuted without obtaining a sanction under Section 197 CrPC, as at the time of the alleged incident, the applicants, being police officials, were on patrolling duty. On the other hand, the AGA opposed their arguments by contending as per the facts of the case and allegations levelled against the applicant, a prima facie case was made out against them. At the outset, the Court observed that the object behind Section 197 CrPC is to protect responsible public servants against the institution of “possibly false or vexatious criminal proceedings” for offences alleged to have been committed by them while they are acting or purporting to act in their official capacity. The Court clarified that the expression "any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty" in section 197 CrPC must neither be construed narrowly nor widely, and the correct approach is to strike a balance between the two extremes. The Court added that a public servant can only be said to act or purport to act in the discharge of his official duty, if his act is such that it lies within the scope and range of his official duties. “The act complained of must be integrally connected or directly linked to his duties as a public servant for the purpose of affording protection under section 197 CrPC…the sine qua non for the applicability of this section is that the offence charged must be committed by the public servant either in his official capacity or under the color of the office held by him such that there is a direct or reasonable connection between the act and the official duty”, the Court observed. Against this backdrop, when the Court examined the facts and allegations in the case, it noted that firstly, at the time of incident, the applicants were not on patrolling duty at the spot of alleged incident and secondly, the alleged act of assault and robbery had no 'reasonable or rational nexus' with discharge of the official duty of applicants. "Considering facts of the matter and position of law, it can not be said that the act of applicants / accused police officials was committed in their official capacity or under the color of the office held by them. There is no direct or reasonable connection between their act and their official duty," the Court noted. Furthermore, the Court noted that the complainant's version was supported by his statement recorded under Section 200 CrPC, corroborated by witness statements under Section 202 CrPC, and further backed by the medical examination reports of the injured persons. In view of this, holding that the alleged acts fell outside the scope of their official duty of the applicants which obviates the question of sanction for their prosecution, the Bench dismissed their plea. Case title - Animesh Kumar And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 143 Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 143 Click Here To Read/Download Order

Police Uniform Not A License To Assault Innocent Citizens; No Protection U/S 197 CrPC For Acts Beyond Official Duty: Allahabad HC

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags