Court holds that alleged assault by police constable on complainant was beyond official duty, thus prosecution sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. not required; petition to quash cognizance orders dismissed.
In a significant judgment dated August 25, 2026, the Rajasthan High Court, before Justice Ravi Chirania, dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition filed by Vinod Kumar, a police constable, seeking to quash the cognizance orders against him in a custodial violence case. The case arose from an incident on July 17, 2018, where the complainant alleged that Vinod Kumar illegally detained and physically assaulted him by locking him inside the courtroom of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and beating him with a stick.
The petitioner challenged the cognizance order dated February 1, 2020, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Suratgarh, and the subsequent revision order dated May 21, 2022, affirming the cognizance. His primary contention was that the courts erred in taking cognizance without obtaining the mandatory prior sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), which protects public servants from criminal prosecution for acts done in discharge of official duties without prior government approval.
The High Court, after hearing arguments from both sides, extensively analyzed the scope of Section 197 Cr.P.C. and relevant Supreme Court precedents, including the recent judgment in Suneeti Toteja v. State of U.P. (2025 INSC 267). It reiterated the settled legal position that prosecution sanction is required only if the alleged offence was committed while the public servant was acting in the discharge of official duty or purporting to do so. If the act is beyond or unconnected with official duty, sanction is not necessary.
The Court carefully scrutinized the facts and found that the petitioner's act of locking the complainant inside the courtroom and inflicting severe physical assault was not connected to or done in the course of his official duties as a police constable. The Court observed that the incident occurred during a public protest related to the petitioner's brother, another police personnel, and that the petitioner alone was singled out for the assault, indicating conduct beyond official capacity.
The Court relied on the earlier decision of a co-ordinate bench in Gulab Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2013), which held that the protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not absolute and applies only if the alleged offence arises from acts done in discharge of official duty. The Court also considered the detailed findings of both the trial and revisional courts, which concluded that the petitioner's assault was unauthorized and illegal detention.
Rejecting the petitioner's arguments, the Rajasthan High Court held that since the acts were beyond the scope of official duty, no sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was necessary before taking cognizance. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the orders of cognizance and revision, thereby allowing the prosecution to proceed against the police constable.
This judgment reaffirms the principle that public servants are protected from frivolous prosecution only when acting within the bounds of their official duties, and illegal acts such as custodial violence attract criminal liability without the shield of prosecution sanction.
Bottom Line:
Prosecution sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is not required if the alleged act of a public servant was not connected with or done in the discharge of official duty but was beyond the scope of such duty.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 197 Cr.P.C., Sections 342, 323, 325, 504, 166 IPC
Vinod Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, (Rajasthan) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2971977
