The Allahabad High Court single judge bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh, recently refused to grant relief to four Uttar Pradesh police officials accused of abusing, assaulting, and unlawfully confining a doctor and his companions at a police post. The bench observed that acts falling outside the scope of a public servant's official duties do not require prior sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the CrPC.

On June 28, 2022, the complainant, a doctor, alleged that while returning from Kanpur with his staff, his vehicle brushed against a white car occupied by the applicants. Although a quarrel ensued, it was eventually resolved. Later that night, around 10:00 PM, when the complainant reached near Khudaganj, three cars stopped his vehicle. The applicants (Police Officials) emerged from the cars and began abusing the complainant and his staff members, accusing them of daring to hit their vehicle. The applicants allegedly assaulted the complainant and his companions, fired shots into the air, forcibly dragged them into their vehicles, stole a gold chain, ₹16,200 in cash, and damaged the complainant's mobile phone. The group was then confined at the Saraimeera police post for about an hour and a half before being released, following intervention by the complainant’s family.

The complainant and witnesses were examined under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. Medical reports confirmed that the complainant and his companions sustained multiple injuries. On this basis, the applicants were summoned for offences under Sections 323, 342, and 394 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Aggrieved by the trial court’s decision to summon them, the applicants, police officials from the Special Operations Group (S.O.G.) in Kannauj, filed an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking to quash the entire proceedings, including the summoning order dated 2nd January, 2024, pending before the Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Areas), Farrukhabad.

The applicants contended that on 28th June, 2022, they were on official patrolling duty when the complainant, driving rashly, collided with their vehicle. They claimed to have warned the complainant to drive carefully, but the complainant became agitated and later fabricated a false complaint against them, including false injury reports. The applicants argued that since they were performing official duties, prosecution could only proceed with prior sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., which had not been obtained. Additionally, they asserted that the witnesses were employees of the complainant and that no prima facie case existed against them. The applicants further argued that the trial court had erred in summoning them and that the proceedings should be quashed.

The learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) opposed the application, highlighting that the complainant’s allegations indicated that after a minor collision on 28th June, 2022, the applicants stopped his car, abused him, and assaulted him and his companions. The applicants allegedly forcibly dragged them into their vehicles, damaged the complainant’s mobile phone, snatched his gold chain and cash, and confined them at a police station for approximately 1.5 hours, resulting in injuries. Based on these facts, the A.G.A. argued that a prima facie case had been established against the applicants.

The court observed that the legal principles for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are well-settled. Such powers should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where, even taking the allegations at face value, no offence is made out. In support of this, the bench cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Om Prakash Yadav v. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay. These rulings explain that public servants are protected under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. only when their alleged acts are reasonably connected to their official duties.

The court noted that the applicants argued that they were on official patrolling duty when the incident occurred. However, the court found no evidence (such as a General Diary entry) to suggest that the applicants were on official duty at the time of the incident. Moreover, the court concluded that the alleged acts of assaulting, robbing, and confining the complainant and his companions could not be considered part of the applicants' official duties. The allegations were supported by medical reports and witness statements, which indicated a prima facie case against the applicants.

“Considering the facts of the matter and the position of law, it cannot be said that the act of applicants/accused police officials was committed in their official capacity or under the color of the office held by them. There is no direct or reasonable connection between their act and their official duty. Merely because the applicants are police officials, it would not provide any shield to the applicants. Police uniform is not a license to assault innocent citizens. Therefore, the act/offence committed by the applicants can safely be said to have been outside the scope of their official duty, which obviates the question of sanction for their prosecution and thus, the applicants are not entitled to avail the shield provided under Section 197 Cr.P.C.” the court stated.

The court clarified that the protection under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. only applies when the actions of a public servant are connected to their official duties. Since there was no reasonable or direct connection between the applicants’ actions and their official duties, the court found that the protection did not apply. Moreover, the trial court is the proper forum to address questions of fact and determine the credibility of the evidence.

Given the lack of a reasonable connection between the applicants' actions and their official duties, the court found no merit in the applicants’ argument for quashing the proceedings. The allegations made by the complainant and supported by the evidence provided a prima facie case against the applicants. Therefore, the application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) was dismissed.

Case Details: Animesh Kumar And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9751 of 2025

Advocate for the Petitioner: Vinay Kumar

Advocate for the Respondent: G.A.