The Supreme Court has held that acts allegedly aimed at suppressing evidence and obstructing justice do not attract the protection of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which bars prosecution of public servants without prior government sanction for acts done in the discharge of official duties. The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta restored criminal proceedings against a Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) in a case concerning the alleged staged killing of a civilian by Punjab Police personnel.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from an alleged fake police encounter that took place on June 16, 2015, near Verka, District Amritsar, resulting in the death of Mukhjit Singh @ Mukha. According to the criminal complaint filed by Princepal Singh, the deceased was driving a white Hyundai i20 car when it was intercepted by a group of policemen in three vehicles. Nine police officials in plain clothes reportedly surrounded the vehicle and opened fire at close range, killing the occupant.
Princepal Singh, who claimed to be present nearby, lodged Criminal Complaint No. 112 of 2016 alleging murder and related offences against nine subordinate police officers and destruction of evidence against DCP Parampal Singh (accused no. 10). He asserted that the DCP arrived after the incident and instructed that the car’s registration plates be removed—an act allegedly constituting destruction of evidence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
Proceedings in the High Court
On August 17, 2017, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar, summoned all ten accused, including the DCP. Subsequently, on March 22, 2018, the Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the nine subordinate officials. However, proceedings against the DCP were stayed, and by an interim order dated May 20, 2019, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the proceedings against him, holding that no prosecution could lie without prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC.
Princepal Singh challenged this order before the Supreme Court.
Arguments and Analysis
The complainant relied on his own sworn testimony and that of another eye-witness recorded under Section 200 CrPC. Both statements alleged that the DCP arrived at the crime scene after the shooting and instructed removal of the car’s number plates.
Rejecting the High Court’s finding, the Supreme Court observed:
“An act that is per se directed to erasing a potential exhibit, if ultimately proved, cannot be regarded as reasonably connected with any bona-fide police duty. The test consistently applied by this Court is whether the impugned act bears a direct and inseparable nexus to official functions.”
The Court further held that where the accusation itself pertains to suppression of evidence, the protection of Section 197 CrPC is not available:
“We believe that where the very accusation is suppression of evidence, the nexus is absent on the face of the record. In such a situation the bar of Section 197 CrPC is not attracted, and sanction is not a condition precedent to cognizance.”
The Court cited its earlier ruling in Gauri Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar (2000) 5 SCC 15 to reaffirm the principle that protection under Section 197 CrPC is limited to acts reasonably connected with official duties and does not extend to acts committed to thwart justice.
The DCP had also relied on CCTV footage purportedly showing the vehicle without number plates; however, the Court found this inconclusive:
“Those materials, however, do not identify when or by whom the plates were removed. They merely raise a matter for evidentiary evaluation at trial.”
Decision
Setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court allowed the complainant’s appeal and restored proceedings against DCP Parampal Singh. The Court directed that the trial be conducted in accordance with law and clarified that the decision should not influence the trial court’s assessment of the evidence or any plea for discharge at a later stage.
In related petitions filed by the nine accused policemen seeking quashing of proceedings and discharge, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court’s decision, holding that a prima facie case had been established based on eye-witness accounts and CCTV evidence.
“The cloak of official duty cannot be extended to acts intended to thwart justice,” the Court concluded.
Title: Head Constable Raj Kumar & Ors. vs State of Punjab & Anr. and Princepal Singh vs DCP Parampal Singh
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 2289 of 2025 (arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 6534 of 2025); SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8656-8657 of 2019
