[Cites 31, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Manesh S/O Dattatraya Chate And Anr. vs Anup S/O Subhashchandra Jaiswal on 28 January, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:1353
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/-
Judgment
apl653.25
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
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
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
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
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 11th 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
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 11th 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 11th rib," which is
.....25/-
Judgment
apl653.25
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
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
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
"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
(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
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
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
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
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
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
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
!! BrWankhede !!
Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../-
Date: 28/01/2026 18:33:58
