NEW DELHI: The Rajasthan high court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a police constable accused of locking a man inside an SDM court premises and severely beating him with a stick, holding that the alleged assault was not part of his official duty. The court also held that prior prosecution sanction was not required to proceed against the constable. The order was passed on August 25, 2026.
Why did the constable seek quashing of the case? According to the court order, an FIR was registered against the constable on October 5, 2018, under Sections 342, 323, 325, 504 and 166 of the IPC over allegations of illegal detention and assault. The complainant, a social worker, alleged that he was forcibly taken to the police station and tortured. A public protest followed the alleged illegal detention and custodial violence. The police later filed a negative final report, but the complainant filed a protest petition. The trial court took cognizance of offences including wrongful confinement, causing hurt and grievous hurt, and intentional insult on February 1, 2020. The constable challenged the order before the revisional court, but his plea was rejected on May 21, 2022. He then approached the high court, arguing that he was performing his official duties at the time and that the court could not take cognizance of the offences without prior prosecution sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC.
Why did the high court reject the sanction argument? Justice Ravi Chirania noted that the complainant was kept in illegal custody and suffered physical assault, following which a public protest took place. The court noted that the complainant was locked inside the SDM court premises and severely beaten with a stick by the constable. The injury report also supported the allegation of physical assault. The constable argued that he was posted at the place of the incident and was performing his official duties along with other police personnel during the protest. He claimed that he alone had been targeted and falsely implicated. The state and the complainant opposed the plea, arguing that the alleged assault could not be treated as an act done in performance of official duty.
The high court first considered the Supreme Court's judgment in Suneeti Toteja v State of Uttar Pradesh, which explained when prior sanction is required for prosecuting a public servant. The Supreme Court held: “The said expression would clearly indicate that Section 197 of the CrPC would not apply to a case if a public servant is accused of any offence which is de hors or not connected to the discharge of his or her official duty. However, there are a line of judgments which have considered this expression in two different ways which we shall now advert to.”
The high court also relied on an earlier Rajasthan high court judgment in Gulab Singh v State of Rajasthan, which held that a police officer must show that the act for which cognizance was taken was done in the course of his official duty before claiming protection under Section 197. The high court then applied that principle to the allegations against the constable.
It noted that the revisional court had already examined the allegation that the petitioner locked the complainant inside the SDM court and severely beat him. “These facts were also discussed in detail by the learned Court while passing the impugned order dated 01.02.2020. Thereafter, the learned revisional court, also examined the facts after considering the entire record and also order of cognizance and noted the said conduct of the petitioner of giving severe beatings to the complainant by locking him inside the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the same cannot be said to be an act done in discharge of his official duties in the capacity of a police Constable at that time along with other persons,” the court said.
The high court further noted that the agitation was against the constable's brother, who was also a police personnel, while the complainant had specifically levelled allegations against the petitioner and not against other police personnel. The court said this showed that the petitioner had acted beyond his official duty.
“This court finds that there was no necessity of prosecution sanction in the present case as the said act was not done in performance of the official duty rather he acted beyond it as the agitation was against his brother who was also a police personnel. This court also noted that the complainant levelled the allegation against the petitioner only and not against any other police personnel which makes it amply clear that only petitioner acted beyond his official duty. In view of the above discussion, this court has reached to the definite conclusion that there is no infirmity in both the impugned orders,” it further added.
The high court therefore dismissed the petition, finding no reason to interfere with the orders of the trial and revisional courts, and allowed the criminal proceedings against the constable to continue.
