The Allahabad High Court has ruled that police personnel accused of subjecting detainees to brutal custodial assault and facing charges under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code cannot seek protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Dismissing two criminal applications moved by police officers, a single-judge bench comprising Justice Madan Pal Singh affirmed the trial court’s rejection of their discharge application, holding that tying individuals face down and inflicting severe blows constitutes a heinous crime rather than the discharge of official duties.
Background of the Case
The proceedings stem from cross-disputes in District Banda. Initially, FIR No. 360/2021 was registered under Sections 147, 323, 504, and 506 IPC at Police Station Baberu on the complaint of Himachal Prasad against Keshav Prasad Yadav (an advocate and the informant herein), his sons Dhanesh and Yogendra, and co-accused Foolchandra and Ramroop alias Tunnu. Section 308 IPC was later added after an injured person was found with a skull fracture. To serve notices under Section 41A CrPC, four constables visited Village Padari, where the accused persons and their family members allegedly abused and assaulted them, snatched their notices and a mobile phone, and threw brickbats.
Following this incident, FIR No. 158/2022 was registered on May 13, 2022, on the complaint of Constable Sukhbir Singh under various penal provisions, including rioting and assault on public servants, against 14 named persons. On the night of May 13, 2022, four female family members of the informant were arrested, followed by the arrest of four male members, including Keshav Prasad Yadav, on May 14, 2022. Upon production before the Magistrate, a court-ordered Medical Board examined all eight arrested persons and documented widespread injuries.
Simultaneously, the informant alleged illegal assault, molestation, custodial violence, looting, and false implication by police personnel, submitting a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Banda, and filing an application under Section 156(3) CrPC. Pursuant to judicial orders, FIR No. 218/2022 was registered on June 26, 2022, against nine named and several unknown police personnel. Although the investigating officer submitted a final report concluding that the case was lodged to overawe the police, the Special Judge on October 18, 2023, rejected the closure report upon a protest petition, took cognizance, and summoned the police personnel for offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504, 354, 354-B, and 395 read with Section 34 IPC.
The summoned police officers initially challenged the summoning order before the High Court in Application U/s 482 No. 418 of 2024, but withdrew it on February 8, 2024, with liberty to seek bail. However, instead of applying for bail, they filed a discharge application before the trial court under Section 197 CrPC, arguing that prior government sanction was mandatory. On September 27, 2024, the Special Judge rejected their discharge plea, prompting the applicants to approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the applicant police personnel contended that the accused were acting in the discharge of their official duties in connection with FIR No. 360/2021. He argued that mandatory sanction under Section 197 CrPC was required before their prosecution, asserting that even where public servants are alleged to have exceeded their authority while discharging official duties, the protective umbrella of Section 197 CrPC continues to apply.
Conversely, the learned Additional Government Advocate and counsel for the informant opposed the pleas, submitting that the conduct of the police personnel—inflicting severe custodial violence on an advocate, his 60-year-old wife, and young daughters—could never be categorized as official duty or an excess thereof. Counsel also highlighted that under the Explanation to Section 197(1) CrPC, no sanction is required when a public servant is accused of an offence under Section 354 IPC. Furthermore, it was argued that the applicants had deliberately flouted the process of law by failing to surrender or seek bail despite an explicit undertaking given to the High Court in earlier proceedings.
Analysis of the Court
Examining the records, the High Court scrutinized the medical board examination reports of all eight victims, which detailed extensive contusions and swelling across their buttocks, thighs, and limbs. Evaluating the severity of the bodily harm, the Court observed:
“Perusal of the aforesaid injuries sustained by the above mentioned injured including the informant reveals that the above injured were subjected to repeated beatings while in police custody at the station by the Police personnel including the applicants, after their hands and feet have been tied by a rope and laid face down, with blows struck specifically on the buttocks, thighs, and calves. Such violence committed by the applicants cannot be termed a part of police duty, it can only be described as a heinous crime nor can it be argued that the police merely overstepped their limits slightly in the course of an investigation. In the opinion of the Court, such police personnel like the applicants are not entitled to any protection as provided under Section 197 Cr.P.C.”
The Court also rejected the police’s explanation in General Diary Entry No. 54 dated May 14, 2022, which claimed that the accused suffered blunt-force and bleeding injuries from falling during the arrest:
“It seems absolutely ridiculous; at the time of arrest, if all four fall and get injured, they will start bleeding.”
Justice Singh remarked that had the trial court not directed a comprehensive examination by a Medical Board, the true extent of injuries would have remained suppressed under false police entries.
Addressing the procedural conduct of the applicants, the Court took strong note of their non-compliance with the previous High Court order dated February 8, 2024, observing:
“Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the discharge application filed by the applicants before the trial court praying for protection as provided under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and such persons like the applicants, who have flouted the process of law deliberately, are not entitled to any relief from this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S.”
Finally, on the statutory bar under the Explanation to Section 197(1) CrPC, the Court noted that the applicants stand summoned for offences including Section 354 IPC, ruling:
“As such, in view of Explanation to Section 197 (1) Cr.P.C. no sanction is required in the case of the applicants, who is a public servant accused.”
The Court held that the case laws cited on behalf of the applicants were clearly distinguishable on facts.
Decision
Holding that the trial court committed no error in refusing to discharge the accused, the High Court affirmed the order dated September 27, 2024, and dismissed both criminal applications as being devoid of merits.
Case Title: Lady Constable Shivani Joshi and 2 others Versus State of U.P. and another (with connected matter)
Case No.: Application U/s 482 No. 42310 of 2024 with Application U/s 528 BNSS No. 21927 of 2025
Bench: Justice Madan Pal Singh
Date: September 09, 2026
