The Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Raj Beer Singh, has dismissed an application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by Animesh Kumar and three other police officials seeking quashing of the entire proceedings, including the summoning order dated 02.01.2024, in Complaint Case No. 179 of 2022. The Court emphasised that “police uniform is not a licence to assault innocent citizens,” and held that the applicants cannot claim protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Background of the Case
The opposite party no.2, Dr. Raghvendra Agnihotri, filed a complaint alleging that on 28.06.2022, while returning from Kanpur with his staff members—Kuldeep Agnihotri, Ashok Kumar, Vijay Agrawal, and Saumya Dubey—his car rubbed against a white vehicle. Although the matter was initially settled, it was alleged that later that night, near Khudaganj, the complainant’s car was intercepted by three vehicles. From these vehicles, police officials, namely Sub-Inspector Animesh Kumar, Constable Kuldeep Yadav, Constable Sudhir, Constable Dushyant, and six other police officials, emerged.
It was alleged that the police officials abused the complainant and his companions, fired shots in the air, forcibly dragged them into their vehicles, damaged the complainant’s mobile phone, and snatched a gold chain and Rs.16,200 in cash. The complainant and his companions were allegedly assaulted with legs and fists and confined at Saraimeera police post in Kannauj for about one and a half hours before being released after their family members intervened.
Subsequently, the complainant was examined under Section 200 CrPC, and witnesses Kuldeep Agnihotri and Ashok Kumar were examined under Section 202 CrPC. Medical records indicated that the complainant sustained six injuries, Saumya Dubey sustained four injuries, and Kuldeep Agnihotri and Vijay Agrawal sustained three injuries each. On the basis of the materials, the trial court summoned the applicants for offences under Sections 323, 342, and 394 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Arguments by the Applicants
The applicants, through learned counsel Vinay Kumar, submitted that they were police officials posted at the Special Operations Group (S.O.G.), Kannauj, and were on patrolling duty at the relevant time. It was contended that the complaint arose out of annoyance after the complainant was warned for rash driving. They argued that the injuries were fabricated by the complainant, who is a doctor, and that the injury reports were falsely prepared.
It was further submitted that as the applicants were discharging their official duty, sanction under Section 197 CrPC was mandatory but had not been obtained. Hence, the entire proceedings, including the summoning order, were liable to be quashed.
Arguments by the State
Learned A.G.A., opposing the application, submitted that clear allegations of assault, robbery, and wrongful confinement had been made against the applicants. It was argued that the applicants’ actions were not related to their official duties, and thus, the requirement of sanction under Section 197 CrPC did not arise. A prima facie case was made out based on the complaint, medical reports, and witness testimonies.
Court’s Analysis
The Court, after hearing both sides and examining the record, referred to the legal principles governing the quashing of criminal proceedings and the applicability of Section 197 CrPC. It cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Om Prakash Yadav vs Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay & Ors., 2024 INSC 979, summarising that protection under Section 197 CrPC applies only when the act complained of has a reasonable connection with the discharge of official duty.
The Court observed:
“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.”
It found that there was no material to show that the applicants were performing any official duty at the time of the incident. No general diary entry was produced to show they were on patrol. Further, the acts alleged—assault, robbery, and wrongful confinement—were held to have no reasonable nexus with the discharge of official duties.
The Court stated:
“Even otherwise the act of assault made on complainant and his companions and commission of robbery has no reasonable or rational nexus with discharge of the official duty of applicants.”
Thus, the Court concluded that the acts committed by the applicants fell outside the scope of their official duties and the question of requiring prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC did not arise.
Decision
Finding that a prima facie case was made out against the applicants based on the complaint, witness statements, and medical evidence, the Court ruled that:
“In view of material on record, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants.”
The Court dismissed the application under Section 528 BNSS, stating:
“The application under section – 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly dismissed.”
