Judgment

apl653.25

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPLICATION APL NO.653 of 2025

1. Shri Mahesh s/o Dattatraya

Chate, aged about 60 years, occupation:

retired, r/o house No.95/D, Anant

Nagar, Behind SBI Colony, Nagpur.

2. Shri Vikram s/o Mahadeo

Sali, aged about 45 years, occupation:

Government Service, r/o Karad,

Satara. ….. Applicants.

:: V E R S U S ::

Anup s/o Subhashchandra Jaiswal,

aged about 45 years, occupation: business,

r/o Krushna Nagar, Wardha.

(Complainant). ….. Non-applicant.

==============================

Shri Kartik Shukul, Counsel for the Applicants

Shri J.B.Kasat, Counsel for the Non-applicant.

==============================

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.

CLOSED ON : 12/01/2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 28/01/2026

JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel Shri Kartik Shukul for the

applicants and learned counsel Shri J.B.Kasat for the non-

.....2/- 2026:BHC-NAG:1353

Judgment

apl653.25

2

applicant. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel

for the parties.

2. By the present application, the applicants are seeking

quashing and setting aside Regular Criminal Case

No.338/2013 pending before learned Joint Civil Judge Junior

Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2,

Wardha and quashing and setting aside order of issuance of

process against the applicants.

3. The applicant No.1 is retired police officer and

applicant No.2 is working in the police department and at the

relevant time was posted as Sub Divisional Police Officer at

Wardha. As per the contention of the non-applicant (the

complainant), he was arrayed as accused in connection with

Crime No.139/2013 registered with the Wardha City Police

Station for offences under Sections 180 and 353 of the IPC

and under Sections 33/131, 115, 116, and 117 of the

Maharashtra Police Act. In the said crime, he was arrested

.....3/-

Judgment

apl653.25

3

and produced before learned Magistrate at Wardha on

25.3.2013. During enquiry, at the time of the remand, he was

subjected to police atrocities during the police custody, due to

which he sustained severe injuries. Therefore, by order of

learned Magistrate, he was referred for medical examination

and, thereafter, his statement was recorded and report was

forwarded to Principle District and Sessions Judge, Wardha to

conduct an enquiry into the allegations made by the

complainant. Accordingly, one person committee was

constituted and the enquiry report was submitted on

18.5.2013. On the basis of the complainant’s statement and

the aforesaid medical and enquiry reports, learned Magistrate

took cognizance under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure and directed the complainant to submit his list of

witnesses. The complainant filed list of witnesses. After

hearing the complainant, learned Magistrate was pleased to

issue process by passing order on 31.8.2013 against the

applicants under Section 323 read with 34 of the IPC.

.....4/-

Judgment

apl653.25

4

Learned Magistrate has also issued the process against the

applicants.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of

issuance of process and of taking cognizance, the complainant

challenged the said order in revision bearing Criminal

Revision No.91/2013 on the ground that the order of issuance

of process under Section 323 of the Code is contrary to the

medical evidence as he has sustained grievous hurt in the

alleged incident. The said revision was allowed and in view

of the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Wardha, process was issued against the applicants under

Section 326 read with 34 of the IPC. Being aggrieved and

dissatisfied with the same, the present application is filed by

the applicants.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that

taking cognizance by learned Magistrate, in absence of

sanction required under Section 197 of the Code itself is

.....5/-

Judgment

apl653.25

5

illegal and erroneous. The alleged incident at all has not

taken place. However, even if it is taken into consideration,

the act committed by the applicants is while discharging the

official duty and, therefore, the sanction is must.

He further invited my attention towards the provisions

under Section 22Q of the Maharashtra Police Act deal with

powers and functions of the State Police Complaints Authority

and under Section 22R(2)(c) of the Maharashtra Police Act

which deals with Authority of the State Government on

submissions of the report.

He further invited my attention towards the medical

certificate and submitted that initial medical certificate

nowhere shows any grievous injuries on the person of the

complainant. He submitted that the medical certificate

nowhere discloses that the injured has sustained grievous

injuries like fracture. In subsequent certificates, the

complainant has brought it on record. He invited my

.....6/-

Judgment

apl653.25

6

attention towards CT Scan Report which shows that “no

pleural or pulmonary lesion” is noted. The CT Scan report

dated 1.4.2013 also shows that there is no evidence of

fracture of 11

th

Rib of left side. He submitted that admittedly,

the complainant was treated in “Acharya Vinoba Bhave Rural

Hospital, wherein initially there was no finding of any

fracture on the person of the injured and subsequently this

report was brought by the complainant, which shows the case

of the complainant is doubtful. In fact, cognizance taken by

learned Magistrate, in absence of the sanction, itself is illegal

and liable to be quashed and set aside.

6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the

applicants placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex

Court in the case of G.C.Manjunath and ors vs. Seetaram,

reported in (2025)5 SCC 390.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-applicant

supported the orders passed by learned Magistrate and

.....7/-

Judgment

apl653.25

7

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha directing to

register the offence against the applicants Section 326 read

with 34 of the IPC. He submitted that the medical reports

filed on record along with reply show that the complainant

was admitted in the hospital on a complaint of police

atrocities. The medical certificate has noted fracture of 11

th

Rib. The CT Scan Report also shows that there was

communicated fracture on left side of 11

th

Rib. Thus, the

allegations levelled by the complainant are supported by the

medical evidence and thus, the application is devoid of merits

and liable to be rejected.

8. Before considering the factual position, it is necessary

to refer the legal position concerning the circumstances

requiring sanction under Section 197 of the Code.

9. Learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on

the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

.....8/-

Judgment

apl653.25

8

G.C.Manjunath and ors vs. Seetaram supra wherein it has

been observed, as under:

“Every offence committed by a police officer does

not attract Section 197 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure read with Section 170 of the

Karnataka Police Act. The protection given under

Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code read

with Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act has

its limitations. The protection is available only

when the alleged act done by the public servant

is reasonably connected with the discharge of his

official duty and official duty is not merely a

cloak for the objectionable act. An offence

committed entirely outside the scope of the duty

of the police officer, would certainly not require

sanction. To cite an example, a policeman

assaulting a domestic help or indulging in

domestic violence would certainly not be entitled

to protection. However, if an act is connected to

the discharge of official duty of investigation of a

recorded criminal case, the act is certainly under

colour of duty, no matter how illegal the act may

be.

.....9/-

Judgment

apl653.25

9

It has been further observed, as under:

“If in doing an official duty a policeman has acted

in excess of duty, but there is a reasonable

connection between the act and the performance

of the official duty, the fact that the act alleged is

in excess of duty will not be ground enough to

deprive the policeman of the protection of the

government sanction for initiation of criminal

action against him”.

10. While dealing with the provisions of Section 197 of the

Code, the observations in paragraph Nos.65 to 77 in the case

of D.Devaraja vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain, reported in (2020)7

SCC 695 are relevant, which are reproduced as under:

“65. The law relating to the requirement of

sanction to entertain and/or take cognizance of

an offence, allegedly committed by a police officer

under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure read with Section 170 of the Karnataka

.....10/-

Judgment

apl653.25

10

Police Act, is well settled by this Court, inter alia

by its decisions referred to above.

66. Sanction of the Government, to prosecute a

police officer, for any act related to the discharge

of an official duty, is imperative to protect the

police officer from facing harassive, retaliatory,

revengeful and frivolous proceedings. The

requirement of sanction from the Government, to

prosecute would give an upright police officer the

confidence to discharge his official duties

efficiently, without fear of vindictive retaliation by

initiation of criminal action, from which he would

be protected under Section 197 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, read with Section 170 of the

Karnataka Police Act. At the same time, if the

policeman has committed a wrong, which

constitutes a criminal offence and renders him

liable for prosecution, he can be prosecuted with

sanction from the appropriate Government.

67. Every offence committed by a police officer

does not attract Section 197 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure read with Section 170 of the

.....11/-

Judgment

apl653.25

11

Karnataka Police Act. The protection given under

Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code read

with Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act has

its limitations. The protection is available only

when the alleged act done by the public servant is

reasonably connected with the discharge of his

official duty and official duty is not merely a cloak

for the objectionable act. An offence committed

entirely outside the scope of the duty of the police

officer, would certainly not require sanction. To

cite an example, a policeman assaulting a

domestic help or indulging in domestic violence

would certainly not be entitled to protection.

However, if an act is connected to the discharge of

official duty of investigation of a recorded

criminal case, the act is certainly under colour of

duty, no matter how illegal the act may be.

68. If in doing an official duty a policeman has

acted in excess of duty, but there is a reasonable

connection between the act and the performance

of the official duty, the fact that the act alleged is

in excess of duty will not be ground enough to

deprive the policeman of the protection of the

.....12/-

Judgment

apl653.25

12

government sanction for initiation of criminal

action against him.

69. The language and tenor of Section 197 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 170 of

the Karnataka Police Act makes it absolutely clear

that sanction is required not only for acts done in

discharge of official duty, it is also required for an

act purported to be done in discharge of official

duty and/or act done under colour of or in excess

of such duty or authority.

70. To decide whether sanction is necessary, the

test is whether the act is totally unconnected with

official duty or whether there is a reasonable

connection with the official duty. In the case of an

act of a policeman or any other public servant

unconnected with the official duty there can be

no question of sanction. However, if the act

alleged against a policeman is reasonably

connected with discharge of his official duty, it

does not matter if the policeman has exceeded the

scope of his powers and/or acted beyond the four

corners of law.

.....13/-

Judgment

apl653.25

13

71. If the act alleged in a complaint purported to

be filed against the policeman is reasonably

connected to discharge of some official duty,

cognizance thereof cannot be taken unless

requisite sanction of the appropriate Government

is obtained under Section 197 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure and/or Section 170 of the

Karnataka Police Act.

72. On the question of the stage at which the trial

court has to examine whether sanction has been

obtained and if not whether the criminal

proceedings should be nipped in the bud, there

are diverse decisions of this Court.

73. While this Court has, in D.T. Virupakshappa

[D.T.Virupakshappa v. C. Subash, (2015) 12 SCC

231 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 82] held that the High

Court had erred [D.T.Virupakshappa v. C. Subash,

2013 SCC OnLine Kar 10774] in not setting aside

an order of the trial court taking cognizance of a

complaint, in exercise of the power under Section

482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in Matajog

.....14/-

Judgment

apl653.25

14

Dobey [Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari, AIR 1956 SC

44 : 1956 Cri LJ 140] this Court held that it is not

always necessary that the need for sanction under

Section 197 is to be considered as soon as the

complaint is lodged and on the allegations

contained therein. The complainant may not

disclose that the act constituting the offence was

done or purported to be done in the discharge of

official duty and/or under colour of duty.

However, the facts subsequently coming to light

in course of the trial or upon police or judicial

enquiry may establish the necessity for sanction.

Thus, whether sanction is necessary or not may

have to be determined at any stage of the

proceedings.

74. It is well settled that an application under

Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is

maintainable to quash proceedings which are ex

facie bad for want of sanction, frivolous or in

abuse of process of court. If, on the face of the

complaint, the act alleged appears to have a

reasonable relationship with official duty, where

the criminal proceeding is apparently prompted

.....15/-

Judgment

apl653.25

15

by mala fides and instituted with ulterior motive,

power under Section 482 of the Criminal

Procedure Code would have to be exercised to

quash the proceedings, to prevent abuse of

process of court.

75. There is also no reason to suppose that

sanction will be withheld in case of prosecution,

where there is substance in a complaint and in

any case if, in such a case, sanction is refused, the

aggrieved complainant can take recourse to law.

At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that the

records of the instant case clearly reveal that the

complainant alleged of police excesses while the

respondent was in custody, in the course of

investigation in connection with Crime

No.12/2012. Patently, the complaint pertains to

an act under colour of duty.

76. Significantly, the High Court has by its

judgment [H.Siddappa v. Owais Sabeer Hussain,

2018 SCC OnLine Kar 3805] and order observed :

(H. Siddappa case [H. Siddappa v. Owais Sabeer

.....16/-

Judgment

apl653.25

16

Hussain, 2018 SCC OnLine Kar 3805] , SCC

OnLine Kar para 5)

5. ... it is well-recognised principle of law

that sanction is a legal requirement which

empowers the court to take cognizance so

far as the public servant is concerned. If at

all the sanction is absolute requirement, if

takes

cognizance it becomes illegal, therefore, an

order to overcome any illegality the duty of

the Magistrate is that even at any subsequent

stages if the sanction is raised it is the duty

of the Magistrate to consider.

77. In our considered opinion, the High Court

clearly erred in law in refusing to exercise its

jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal

Procedure Code to set aside the order of the

Magistrate impugned taking cognizance of the

complaint, after having held that it was a

recognised principle of law that sanction was a

legal requirement which empowers the court to

take cognizance. The Court ought to have

.....17/-

Judgment

apl653.25

17

exercised its power to quash the complaint

instead of remitting the appellant to an

application under Section 245 of the Criminal

Procedure Code to seek discharge.”

11. Thus, the following principles can be culled out in

the case of D.Devaraja vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain supra :

“i. Sanction of the Government, to prosecute a

Police Officer, for any act related to the discharge

of an official duty, is imperative to protect the

Police Officer from facing harassive, retaliatory,

revengeful and frivolous proceedings. The

requirement of sanction from the Government, to

prosecute would give an upright Police Officer the

confidence to discharge his official duties

efficiently, without fear of vindictive retaliation by

initiation of criminal action, from which he would

be protected under Section 197 of CrPC.

ii. At the same time, if the policeman has

committed a wrong, which constitutes a criminal

offence and renders him liable for prosecution, he

.....18/-

Judgment

apl653.25

18

can be prosecuted with sanction from the

appropriate Government.

iii. Every offence committed by a Police Officer

does not attract Section 197 of CrPC. The

protection given under Section 197 of CrPC has

its limitations. The protection is available only

when the alleged act done by the public servant is

reasonably connected with the discharge of his

official duty. An offence committed entirely

outside the scope of the duty of the Police Officer,

would certainly not require sanction.

iv. If an act is connected to the discharge of

official duty of investigation of a recorded

criminal case, the act is certainly under colour of

duty, no matter how illegal the act may be.

v. If in doing an official duty a policeman has

acted in excess of duty, but there is a reasonable

connection between the act and the performance

of the official duty, the fact that the act alleged is

in excess of duty will not be ground enough to

deprive the policeman of the protection of the

.....19/-

Judgment

apl653.25

19

government sanction for initiation of criminal

action against him.

vi. The language and tenor of Section 197 of CrPC

makes it absolutely clear that sanction is required

not only for acts done in discharge of official duty,

it is also required for an act purported to be done

in discharge of official duty and/or act done

under colour of or in excess of such duty or

authority.

vii. To decide whether sanction is necessary, the

test is whether the act is totally unconnected with

official duty or whether there is a reasonable

connection with the official duty. In the case of an

act of a policeman or any other public servant

unconnected with the official duty there can be

no question of sanction. However, if the act

alleged against a policeman is reasonably

connected with discharge of his official duty, it

does not matter if the policeman has exceeded the

scope of his powers and/or acted beyond the four

corners of law.

.....20/-

Judgment

apl653.25

20

viii. If the act alleged in a complaint purported to

be filed against the policeman is reasonably

connected to discharge of some official duty,

cognizance thereof cannot be taken unless

requisite sanction of the appropriate Government

is obtained under Section 197 of CrPC”.

12. Thus, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex

Court in the case of D.Devaraja vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain

supra, the protection under Section 197 of the Code has its

limitation and the protection is available when the alleged act

done by public servant is reasonably connected with the

discharge of his official duty and official duty is not merely a

cloak for the objectionable act. An offence committed by

Police Officer entirely outside the scope of the duty of the

Police Officer, would certainly not require sanction. However,

if the act is connected to the discharge of official duty of

investigation of a recorded criminal case, the act is certainly

under colour of duty, no matter how illegal the act may be. If

in doing an official duty a policeman has acted in excess of

.....21/-

Judgment

apl653.25

21

duty but there is a reasonable connection between the act and

the performance of the official duty, the fact that the act

alleged is in excess of duty will not be ground enough to

deprive the policeman of the protection of the government

sanction for initiation of criminal action against him. It has

been very specifically held that sanction is required not only

for acts done in discharge of official duty, the same is also

required for an act purported to be done in discharge of

official duty and or act done under colour of or in excess of

such duty or authority. It has been held that to decide

whether the sanction is necessary, the test is whether the act

is totally unconnected with official duty or whether there is a

reasonable connection with the official duty. Thus, what is

important criteria to decide whether sanction under Section

197 of the Code is necessary or not is that whether the act

alleged is totally unconnected with the official duty or

whether there is a reasonable connection with the official

duty.

.....22/-

Judgment

apl653.25

22

13. In another judgment in the case of Gurmeet Kaur vs.

Devender Gupta, reported in (2025)5 SCC 481, the Hon’ble

Apex Court dealt with the object and purpose of Section 197

of the Code, which reads as under:

“A careful reading of Section 197 of the CrPC

unequivocally delineates a statutory bar on the

Court's jurisdiction to take cognizance of

offences alleged against public servants, save

without the prior sanction of the appropriate

Government. The essential precondition for the

applicability of this provision is that the alleged

offence must have been committed by the

public servant while acting in the discharge of,

or purported discharge of, their official duties.

The protective mantle of Section 197 of the

CrPC, however, is not absolute; it does not

extend to acts that are manifestly beyond the

scope of official duty or wholly unconnected

thereto. Acts bereft of any reasonable nexus to

official functions fall outside the ambit of this

safeguard and do not attract the bar imposed

under Section 197 of the CrPC.”

.....23/-

Judgment

apl653.25

23

14. In light of the aforesaid judgments, the guiding

principle governing the necessity of prior sanction stands well

settled. The only enquiry required is, whether the impugned

act is reasonably connected to the discharge of official duty. If

the act is wholly unconnected or manifestly devoid of any

nexus to the official functions of the public servant, the

requirement of sanction is obviated. Conversely, where there

exists even a reasonable link between the act complained of

and the official duties of the public servant, the protective

umbrella of Section 197 of the Code and Section 170 of the

Police Act is attracted. In such cases, prior sanction assumes

the character of a sine qua non, regardless of whether the

public servant exceeded the scope of authority or acted

improperly while discharging his duty.

15. Coming to the present case in hand, the

allegations against the applicants are that while investigating

the crime bearing No.139/2013 , they committed atrocities on

.....24/-

Judgment

apl653.25

24

the complainant. As per the allegations in the said crime,

against the complainant, when the police officials along with

police staff had been to the Empress Club for conducting raid,

they were obstructed while discharging the official duty and,

therefore, the offence was registered. The allegations levelled

by the complainant against the applicants are that after he

was taken into the custody by the police officials, he was

assaulted by removing his clothes, due to which he has

sustained grievous injuries. The complainant was arrested in

the said crime and produced before learned Magistrate.

Before the Magistrate, he has made complaint about the

atrocity. Learned Magistrate has referred him for medical

examination. During medical examination it revealed that he

has sustained fracture injury. The said injury was, as per the

allegation, caused due to the assaulted by “stick”. The

medical papers produced on record show that he was treated

in the hospital and finding was that, “he has sustained blunt

trauma on chest and fracture of 11

th

rib,” which is

.....25/-

Judgment

apl653.25

25

substantiated by CT Scan Report also. During the enquiry by

the committee appointed by learned District and Sessions

Judge, wherein also the assault at the hands of the applicants

to the complainant revealed and, therefore, the directions

were given by learned Magistrate to register the offence. As

learned Magistrate has directed to register the offence under

Section 323 of the IPC, the said order was challenged by the

complainant and learned Additional Sessions Judge,

considering the injury sustained in the nature of fracture

injury, directed to register the offence Section 326 read with

34 of the IPC.

16. The allegations levelled against the accused are

grave in nature that the accused abused the official authority

and assaulted physically and ill-treatment to the complainant

constituting acts of alleged police excess.

17. In the circumstances at hand, it is apparent that

while conducting the investigation and enquiry with the

.....26/-

Judgment

apl653.25

26

complainant, who was accused in Crime No.139/2013, the

police officers have exceeded their acts. Thus, the allegations

levelled against the accused, though grave, squarely fall

within the ambit of “acts done under colour of, or in excess of,

such duty or authority”, and “acting or purporting to act in

the discharge of his official duty”, as envisaged under Section

197 of the CrPC.

18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of D.Devaraja

vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain supra, has observed that where a

police officer, in the course of performing official duties,

exceeds the bounds of such duty, the protective shield under

the relevant statutory provisions continues to apply, provided

there exists a reasonable nexus between the impugned act

and the discharge of official functions. It has been

categorically held that transgression or overstepping of

authority does not, by itself, suffice to displace the statutory

safeguard of requiring prior government sanction before

prosecuting the public servant concerned.

.....27/-

Judgment

apl653.25

27

19. In the present case, it is an admitted position that

the complainant was arrayed as accused in the crime

registered under Sections 180 and 353 of the IPC and under

Sections 33/131, 115, 116, and 117 of the Maharashtra Police

Act.

20. It is pertinent to note that pursuant to the

recommendation and directions given by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in the case of Prakash Singh and ors vs. Union of India

and ors, reported in (2006)8 SCC 1, the Police Complaints

Authority was constituted. Accordingly, the Maharashtra

Police Act, 1951 was amended by the Maharashtra Police

(Amendment and Continuance Act, 2014) and Sections

22Q(1)(a) and Section 22R were introduced apart from the

other provisions. Accordingly, SPCA has been constituted by

the State Government to entertain the complaints against

police officers and police personnel who failed to perform

their duties and functions. Section 22Q(1) reads as under:

.....28/-

Judgment

apl653.25

28

“Section 22Q. - Powers and functions of State

Police Complaints Authority.

(1) The State Police Complaints Authority

shall exercise the powers and perform the

functions as follows:-

(a) inquire suo-moto or on a complaint

against Police Officers presented to it by,

—

(i) a victim or any member of his family

or any other person on his behalf;

(ii) the National or State Human Rights

Commission; and

(iii) the police, into the complaint of,—

(i) death in police custody;

(ii) grievous hurt as defined under

section 320 of the Indian Penal Code

(45 of 1860);

(iii) rape or attempt to commit rape;

(iv) arrest or detention without following

the prescribed procedure;

(v) corruption;

(vi) extortion;

.....29/-

Judgment

apl653.25

29

(vii) land or house grabbing; and

(viii) any other matter involving serious

violation of any provision of law or abuse

of lawful authority;

(b) require any person to furnish information

on such points or matters as in the opinion of

the authority may be useful for or relevant to

the subject matter of inquiry”.

21. Section 22R(1) deals with the procedure followed

by the SPCA on completion of enquiry.

Section 22R(1)(c) states that, “if the report of the

State Police Complaints Authority discloses a prima facie case

of commission of a cognizable offence, the State Government

shall forward the same to the concerned Police Station and

thereupon the same may be recorded as First Information

Report under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973.

.....30/-

Judgment

apl653.25

30

22. In view of the above provisions, the aggrieved

person against activities of the State Police Complaints can

approach in view of Section 22Q of the Maharashtra Police

Act.

23. It is very relevant and significant to note that

Section 197 of the Code specifically provides that sanction of

the Government is required if a public servant is accused of

any offence alleged to have been committed by him while

acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty,

and in such a case no Court shall take cognizance of such

offence except with the previous sanction of the concerned

Government. Thus, what is required to determine whether in

the light of the prima facie material which shows that the

complainant has been subjected to police atrocities and

whether in such a case the sanction is necessary. Thus, what

is required to be considered is, whether such case will be

covered under the term “while acting or purporting to act in

the discharge of the official duty” of the Police Officials.

.....31/-

Judgment

apl653.25

31

24. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down various

principles guiding in which sanction under Section 197 of the

Code is necessary. The protection under Section 197 of CrPC

is available only when the alleged act done by the public

servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his

official duty and official duty is not merely a cloak for the

objectionable act. It has been further held that an offence

committed entirely outside the scope of the duty of the Police

Officer, would certainly not require sanction. It has been

further held that if an act is connected to the discharge of

official duty of investigation of a recorded criminal case, the

act is certainly under colour of duty, no matter how illegal the

act may be. It has been further held that if in doing an official

duty a policeman has acted in excess of duty, but there is a

reasonable connection between the act and the performance

of the official duty, the fact that the act alleged is in excess of

duty will not be ground enough to deprive the policeman of

the protection of the government sanction for initiation of the

.....32/-

Judgment

apl653.25

32

criminal action against him. It has been further held that the

language of Section 197 of CrPC makes it absolutely clear that

sanction is required not only for acts done in discharge of

official duty but the same are for an act purported to be done

in discharge of official duty and/or act done under colour of

or in excess of such duty or authority.

25. Thus, test is whether the act is totally unconnected

with the official duty or whether the act purported to be

done in discharge of official duty. If the act alleged against a

policeman is reasonably connected with discharge of his

official duty, it does not matter if the policeman has exceeded

the scope of his powers and/or acted beyond the four corners

of law and in such a case sanction under Section 197 of CrPC

is necessary.

26. In the case of G.C.Manjunath and ors vs. Seetaram

supra, relied upon by the applicants, the similar ratio is laid

down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It has been held that for

.....33/-

Judgment

apl653.25

33

determining the aspect whether sanction under Section 197 of

the Code is necessary, the pivotal inquiry is whether the

impugned act is reasonably connected to the discharge of

official duty. If the act is wholly unconnected or manifestly

devoid of any nexus to the official functions of the public

servant, the requirement of sanction is obviated. Conversely,

where there exists even a reasonable link between the act

complained of and the official duties of the public servant, the

protective umbrella of Section 197 of the Code is attracted. It

has been further held that where a police officer, in the course

of performing official duties, exceeds the bounds of such duty,

the protective shield under the relevant statutory provisions

continues to apply, provided there exists a reasonable nexus

between the impugned act and the discharge of official

functions. It has been categorically held that transgression or

overstepping of authority does not, by itself, suffice to

displace the statutory safeguard of requiring prior

.....34/-

Judgment

apl653.25

34

government sanction before prosecuting the public servant

concerned.

27. In view of the above legal position, even if the

complaint and verification are perused, it is clear that the

complainant has arrested by the concerned police personnel

as the crime was registered against him. It appears that while

doing official duty, policeman has acted in excess of duty and

there is a reasonable connection between the act and

performance of the official duty. The fact that the act alleged

is in excess of duty will not be a ground to deprive the

policemen of the protection of the government sanction for

initiation of criminal action against them.

28. For the above reasons, the act of the applicants

though grave squarely falls within the ambit of “acts done

under colour of, or in excess of, such duty or authority”, and

“acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official

duty”, as envisaged under Section 197 of the Code.

.....35/-

Judgment

apl653.25

35

29. In view of that, Regular Criminal Case

No.338/2013 pending before learned Joint Civil Judge Junior

Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2,

Wardha and order of issuance of process passed by the

Magistrate require to be quashed and set aside.

30. At the same time, in the light of the law laid down

by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gurmeet Kaur vs.

Devender Gupta supra, the complainant is permitted to

pursue his complaint after taking appropriate steps in

accordance with law seeking sanction and, thereafter, he can

be permitted to pursue his complaint. Accordingly, the

application is allowed in the above terms.

Application stands disposed of.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

.....36/-

Judgment

apl653.25

36

!! BrWankhede !!

...../-