In a recent decision, the Kerala High Court ruled that acts of police brutality cannot be justified as part of official duty, dismissing a petition by a police officer seeking protection under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Justice K. Babu, delivering the judgment on November 27, 2024, emphasized the distinction between legitimate official actions and misuse of authority.
The court’s ruling came in the case of Crl.Rev.Pet No. 86 of 2015, filed by C. Alavi, a Sub-Inspector of Nilambur Police Station. Alavi faced accusations of physically assaulting a complainant, Aneesh Kumar, and his pregnant sister at the police station. The officer contended that the alleged actions were executed in his capacity as a public servant, warranting immunity under Section 197 CrPC.
Case Background
The case arose from an incident on July 28, 2008, when Aneesh Kumar was summoned to Nilambur Police Station following a complaint filed by one Daisy Mathai. Kumar alleged that after he arrived at the station, Alavi abused and assaulted him, including hitting his head against the wall and kicking him in the abdomen. Kumar’s sister, a woman constable at the station, intervened but was also reportedly assaulted.
Despite the filing of Crime No. 448/2008, the police dismissed the allegations as a “false case.” This led Kumar to file a private complaint, resulting in the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class at Nilambur taking cognizance of the case under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, and 341 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Alavi challenged this action, arguing that Section 197 CrPC required government sanction to prosecute him as the acts were allegedly part of his official duties.
Legal Issues
1. Applicability of Section 197 CrPC:
The primary legal question was whether the officer’s actions, including the alleged physical assault, could be linked to his official duties as a police officer.
2. Definition and Scope of “Official Duty”:
The court examined whether the acts of physical abuse fell within the ambit of actions performed in the discharge of official functions.
Court Observations
Justice K. Babu, while analyzing the case, referred to multiple precedents to determine the applicability of Section 197 CrPC. He noted that while the provision aims to protect public servants from frivolous litigation for acts performed in the line of duty, it does not extend to actions that are clearly outside the scope of lawful duties.
The court stated:
“How can we say that the act of a Police Officer physically torturing a man at the Police Station is to be treated as part of his official duty? The accused/revision petitioner cannot claim that what he did was by virtue of his office.”
Justice Babu emphasized the principle that there must be a reasonable connection between the alleged act and the discharge of official duty. In this case, the court observed that the alleged actions of abuse and assault could not be classified as acts performed in an official capacity.
Key Precedents Discussed
The judgment cited several Supreme Court and High Court rulings to clarify the scope of Section 197 CrPC, including:
– Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari: The Supreme Court held that there must be a reasonable nexus between the act and the official duty.
– Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das: The Supreme Court observed that actions related to maintaining law and order could fall under official duties.
– Moosa Vallikkadan v. State of Kerala: The Kerala High Court reiterated that acts performed as part of official duty, even if exceeding necessity, may attract protection under Section 197.
In this case, however, the court noted:
“The alleged acts, at any rate, would not fall within the scope and range of his official duties. Therefore, he is not entitled to the protection contemplated under Section 197 CrPC.”
The Judgment
Dismissing the revision petition, Justice Babu upheld the Magistrate’s decision to take cognizance of the case. He concluded that Alavi’s actions, as alleged, amounted to misuse of power and could not be shielded under the guise of performing official duties.
Parties Involved
– Petitioner: C. Alavi, represented by Advocates Babu S. Nair and Smitha Babu.
– Respondents:
– The State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor G. Sudheer.
– Complainant Aneesh Kumar, represented by Advocate P. Jayaram.
