'Custodial Torture Falls Outside Scope Of Duty': MP High Court Refuses Sanction Protection U/S 197 CrPC To Accused Police Officers

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that the protection granted to police officers from prosecution, Section 197 CrPC or Section 218 of BNSS, does not exist in cases of abuse, false arrest, custodial violence or false registration, and is only applicable where there is a 'reasonable connection' with official duty.

The bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Gupta dismissed the petition filed by the police officers accused of obscene actions and words (Section 294), wrongful confinement (Section 342), voluntarily causing hurt (Section 323) and criminal intimidation (Section 506 Part 1).

The bench observed;

"Section 197's protection arises only when there is “reasonable connection” with official duty which does not exist in cases of abuse, torture, false arrests, custodial violence, or false case registration.The protection under Section 197 is not automatic. It only applies if the act is committed “while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty. There must be a “reasonable connection” between the act and the relevant official duty. If such nexus is absent i.e. custodial torture, thirddegree treatment, abuse, false case filing, fabrication of evidence then protection fails".

The complainant, Pooja Kushwah, alleged that on October 12, 2019, her brother Dhirendra and one Devendra Sharma were assaulted by police personnel near the village of Partwada and later subjected to alleged custodial violence inside Bhargawan Police Station.

Per the complaint, Dhirendra was stopped, abused, slapped and beaten with sticks by the accused police personnel. He was allegedly taken to the police station where he was tripped, beaten, abused and confined in a lock-up.

When the complainant reached the Police Station, she was allegedly also assaulted, slapped and beaten with sticks, and her dupatta was pulled off. Another accused, Ravi Khare, allegedly bit her on the shoulder and mouth.

Due to Dhirendra's injuries, the police personnel took him to the Community Health Centre, Karahal, after midnight, where he underwent an MLC and returned to the Station. The complainant is admitted to the Hospital where her treatment is ongoing.

Additionally, upon inquiry from the complainant's mother, the police personnel spoke rudely to her and threatened to ruin her life. The mother thereafter filed an application before the Sheopur SP, the Home Ministry, and the Chairman of the Human Rights Legal Cell, but no action was taken.

The Trial Court took cognizance of offences, obscene actions and words (Section 294), wrongful confinement (Section 342), voluntarily causing hurt (Section 323) and criminal intimidation (Section 506 Part 1).

The accused police personnel applied Section 218 of the BNSS, which requires prior government sanction for a court to take cognizance of an offence allegedly committed by a public servant, but it was dismissed. Agrieved, the police personnel filed a revision before the Session Judge of Sheopur, which was dismissed. So, they approached the High Court.

The counsel for the police personnel (petitioners) argued that in the stated incident, the police personnel were also injured with blood on their uniforms, which were also torn. Additionally, the complaint against them was not maintainable without permission of the government.

The bench observed that the complainant and her brother were not accused of any offence before the said incident. Further, it was evident that the complainant and brother were not required for interrogation at the time of the incident. There was only an altercation in the said incident.

Further, the bench clarified that the protection granted to public servants under Section 218 of BNSS or Section 197 of CrPC is not absolute. It observed;

"The Central Test is whether the impugned act bears a reasonable connection with the discharge of official duties that is whether one can reasonably postulate that the act was done by virtue of the office, even if in excess of the authority".

The bench further examined the situation during the incident and held that the alleged assault by the police officers was not the demand of the movement and therefore their actions do not fall under discharge of official duties. It emphasized;

"If an Act is wholly unrelated to official duties, or is manifestly beyond the scope of official duty, then Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. does not apply. If a police officer exceeds his powers, protection under Section 197 relevant Police Act may apply but only if there is a reasonable connection between the act and official duty. Not every offence committed by a police officer automatically gets official-duty protection the impugned act must be reasonably connected to his duties".

The bench held that the allegations of custodial beating and 'marpeet' against the complainant cannot, even prima facie, be said to form part of the petitioner's official duties while relying on the case of P.P. Unnikrishnan v. Puttiyottil Alikutty, [(2000) 8 SCC 131], State of Maharashtra v. Budhikota Subbarao [(1993) 3 SCC 339], D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal [(1997) 1 SCC 416], Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab [(2016) 12 SCC 87] and Dr. S.M. Mansoori v. Surekha Parmar [2023 SCC OnLine SC 436].

The bench, therefore, dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Mamta Gurjar v Pooja Kushwah [MCRC-26331-2025]

For Petitioner: Advocate Arun Katare

For Complainant: Advocate Manvardhan Singh Tomar

Click here to read/download the Order