Gajanan Laxmanrao Padghan And 5 Others vs Deepak Prabhudayal Dajjuka And Another
2026 Latest Caselaw 924 Bom

Bombay High Court

Gajanan Laxmanrao Padghan And 5 Others vs Deepak Prabhudayal Dajjuka And Another on 28 January, 2026

2026:BHC-NAG:1352




              Judgment

                                                         apl1335.19

                                           1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                    CRIMINAL APPLICATION APL NO.1335 of 2019

              1. Gajanan Laxmanrao Padghan,
              aged 50 years, occupation service,
              r/o 403, Gajanan Vihar Apartments,
              Satav Chowk, Jatharpeth, Akola,
              taluka and district Akola.

              2. Manohar Anandrao Mohd,
              aged 51 years, occupation service,
              r/o Emrald colony, Geeta Nagar,
              Akola, taluka and district Akola.

              3. Mohd.Ayyaz Mohd.Gulam Jilani,
              aged 47 years, occupation service,
              r/o Devi police Line Quarter, Akola.
              Taluka and district Akola.

              4. Govinda Padmakar Kulkarni,
              aged 49 years, occupation service,
              r/o Aashray Nagar, old city, Akola,
              taluka and district Akola.

              5. Nitin Suresh Magar,
              aged 42 years, occupation service,
              r/o Geeta Nagar, Akola,
              taluka and district Akola.

              6. Sanjay Natthuji Bharsakhade,
              aged about 49 yers, occupation service,


                                                            .....2/-
 Judgment

                                                    apl1335.19

                             2

r/o Geeta Nagar, Akola,
Taluka and district Akola.        ..... Applicants.

                     :: V E R S U S ::

1. Deepak Prabhudayal Dajjuka,
aged 52 years, occupation business,
r/o Station Area, Murtizapur,
taluka Murtizapur, district Akola.

2. State of Maharashtra,
through DGP Akola,
taluka and district Akola.    ..... Non-applicant.
==============================
Shri A.S.Mardikar, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri
V.R.Deshpande, Advocate for the Applicants.
Ms Garima Jain, Advocate h/f Shri S.V.Sirpurkar, Counsel
for NA No.1.
Shri A.M.Kadukar, APP for NA No.2/State.
==============================
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
CLOSED ON : 12/01/2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 28/01/2026

JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned Senior Counsel Shri A.S.Mardikar for

the applicants, learned counsel Ms Garima Jain for the non-

applicant No.1, and learned APP Shri A.M.Kadukar for the

.....3/-

Judgment

apl1335.19

non-applicant No.2/State. Admit. Heard finally by consent of

learned counsel for the parties.

2. By the present application, the applicants are seeking

quashing and setting aside order dated 2.11.2019 passed by

learned Sessions Judge, Akola in Criminal Revision

No.162/2017 and also order dated 2.8.2017 passed by

learned JMFC, Court No.1, Murtizapur below Exh.1 in MCC

No.189/2017.

3. The applicants are police officials and at the relevant

time were posted at Murtizapur Police Station, district Akola.

On 22.4.2017 they were on patrolling duty and were passing

from "Sarafa Lane". They came across "Sugar Cane Juice

Stall" which was set up by one Parag Deepak Dajjuka. The

said stall was encroaching on the road and was causing

obstruction to the traffic. The applicants, therefore, asked

said Parag Dajjuka to remove the said stall on which later

arrogantly denied and obstructed the applicants from

.....4/-

Judgment

apl1335.19

discharging their official duties and, therefore, the action was

taken against him under Sections 102, 110, and 117 of the

Maharashtra Police Act. Said Parag Dajjuka, thereafter, was

arrested and taken to the Mauritian City Police Station and

the offence was registered against him vide Crime

No.15/2017 under Sections 102, 110, and 117 of the

Maharashtra Police Act. He was immediately released on

bail. On 24.4.2017, the applicants have submitted Istegasa

(report) with regard to the aforementioned action before

learned JMFC. Learned JMFC passed order on 24.4.2017

and directed that the same be registered as Summary

Criminal Case. On 24.4.2017, learned Magistrate has

recorded that the accused is absent and summons be issued

to him on the basis of the said report. The said report was

submitted along with panchanama and SANA Entry dated

22.4.2017. The applicants have also registered NC Report

against said Parag Dajjuka and also his son as both of them

obstructed public servants from discharging their official

.....5/-

Judgment

apl1335.19

duties. The said report was registered as NC No.177/2017

for the offence under Section 186 of the IPC. The applicant

No.1 has also sent a communication to the Superintendent of

Police at Akola seeking permission to take action against the

non-applicant No.1 and his son on the basis of NC

No.177/2017.

4. Subsequent to that, on 24.4.2017 and 27.6.2017 said

Parag Gajjuka and his father made a complaint before

Superintendent of Police at Akola stating therein that these

applicants have abused have and assaulted him on 22.4.2017

on pretext of removal "Juice Centre" set up by them. The

allegations in the said complaint pertain to the same incident

dated 22.4.2017. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint,

Superintendent of Police at Akola called for report from

SDPO, Murtizapur vide letter dated 15.5.2017. The SDPO

Murtizapur conducted an enquiry and submitted report on

9.6.2017 to the Superintendent of Police at Akola stating

therein that the applicants have taken lawful action against

.....6/-

Judgment

apl1335.19

the complainant therein and no illegality has been committed

by them during the course of the same. Several prosecutions

are pending against the non-applicant No.1 and he had

lodged the complaint with a sole motive to harass the

applicants. Learned Magistrate under Section 200 of the

CrPC has taken a cognizance of the said complaint filed by

the non-applicant No.1. The said complaint has been

registered as NCC No.189/2017 which was again re-

registered as NCC No.1075/2017. On recording verification

on 20.7.2017, learned Magistrate issued process against the

applicants under Sections 294, 323, 342, 357, 504, and 506

read with 34 of the IPC. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied

with the same, the applicants have preferred a revision

bearing Criminal Revision No.162/2017. The said revision

was also dismissed by learned Sessions Judge and, therefore,

the present application is preferred.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants submitted

that the non-applicant No.1 was never in police custody.

.....7/-

Judgment

apl1335.19

The statements of the witnesses also disclose that the non-

applicant No.1 has parked his handcart causing disturbance

to the traffic and, therefore, he was asked to remove said

handcart. At the relevant time, he has made obstruction to

the applicants who were performing their official duties. The

report of the SDPO also supports the said contention. Thus,

with an ulterior motive, the present complaint before learned

Magistrate came to be lodged. Learned Magistrate as well as

learned Sessions Judge has not considered the fact that the

alleged act has taken place when the applicants were

discharging their official duties and, therefore, sanction is

required under Section 197 of the CrPC to prosecute the

applicants. In absent of the sanction, no court can take

cognizance. For all above these grounds, the application

deserves to be allowed.

6. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel

for the applicants has placed reliance on the decision in the

.....8/-

Judgment

apl1335.19

case of Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh and ors vs. Jammal Patel

and ors, reported in (2001)5 SCC 7.

7. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for

the State strongly opposed the said contentions and

submitted that the act committed by the applicants was not

while discharging their official duties and, therefore, the

protection under Section 197 of the CrPC is not available to

them. The applicants who are police officers have abused the

complainant in a filthy language and, thereafter, insisted and

humiliated him. In view of that the complaint was made by

the complainant earlier to the Superintendent of Police and,

thereafter, in the court. The trial court as well as the

revisional court has considered all these aspects and rightly

issued process. In view of that, the application deserves to be

rejected.

8. On hearing both the sides and perusing the

investigation papers, it is not in dispute that the non-

.....9/-

Judgment

apl1335.19

applicant No.1 was running the "Sugar Cane Juice Centre".

There is no dispute that on 22.4.2017 at about 7:00 pm the

applicants were on patrolling duty and they have taken

action against the non-applicant No.1 as he has created

obstruction to traffic and, thereafter, he was prosecuted

under Sections 102, 110, 117 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

The report submitted by the Police Inspector of Murtizapur

Police Station to learned Magistrate shows that the action has

taken against the non-applicant No.1 on 22.4.2017. When

the said report was submitted, admittedly, the non-applicant

No.1 was absent and the notice was issued to the non-

applicant No.1. The report submitted by the Police Inspector

of Murtizapur Police Station discloses the manner in which

the alleged incident has taken place. The panchanama as to

the spot of the incident was also drawn in presence of

panchas and, thereafter, the report was lodged. The SANA

Entry bearing No.22/2017 is also taken to that effect on

22.4.2017. Subsequent to that, the NC Report was also

.....10/-

Judgment

apl1335.19

lodged against the non-applicant No.1. The Investigating

Officer has also sought permission under Section 155 of the

CrPC for taking appropriate action against the non-applicant

No.1. The report was also submitted to the Superintendent

of Police for seeking permission to take an action by filing FIR

against the non-applicant No.1 by obtaining permission

under Section 155 of the CrPC.

9. Subsequent to all these events, on 24.4.2017, first

time, the non-applicant No.1 has filed a complaint against

the applicants that they have manhandled him when he was

present in his "Juice Centre" and he was also assaulted.

Taking cognizance of the said complaint, the enquiry was

conducted by the SDPO and it is specifically observed by the

SDPO that on recording the statements of witnesses, it

revealed to him that there is no substance in the complaint

made by the non-applicant No.1 and no such incident of

manhandling has taken place along with the non-applicant

No.1. The non-applicant No.1 has applied for sanction. The

.....11/-

Judgment

apl1335.19

communication dated 1.11.2017 of the Home Department

shows that the said sanction was refused. The non-applicant

No.1 filed complaint on 29.6.2017 prior to applying for

sanction before learned Magistrate. Learned Magistrate has

recorded his verification and after recording verification has

issued process. The order of issuance of process shows that

despite the non-applicant No.1 approached the

Superintendent of Police, no action was taken and, therefore,

the non-applicant No.1 approached the court and after

perusal of the complaint and the allegations levelled by him

and as the sanction is not required as the act was not

committed within the discharge of official duty, issued

process. The said order is confirmed by the revisional court

and the revision filed by the applicants is dismissed.

10. Thus, there is no dispute as to the fact that the report

was filed against the non-applicant No.1 as he has created

obstruction to the traffic. The preventive action was taken as

well as NC Report was also filed against him. The report was

.....12/-

Judgment

apl1335.19

also submitted to learned Magistrate as well as entry to that

effect was also taken. Admittedly, the complaint was made

by the non-applicant No.1 after two days though he was

immediately released on bail. As far as assault is concerned,

no document is filed on record to show that he was subjected

for the physical assault and no medical certificate is placed

on record. The crime chart shows that several offences are

registered against the non-applicant No.1 and the crime chart

is also placed on record.

11. The only question is, whether the act of the applicants

would cover under the discharge of official duty while

investigating into the offence.

12. The principles culled out in the case of D.Devaraja vs.

Owais Sabeer Hussain, reported in (2020)7 SCC 695 are

relevant, which are reproduced as under:

"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

.....13/-

Judgment

apl1335.19

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 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.

.....14/-

Judgment

apl1335.19

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 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.

.....15/-

Judgment

apl1335.19

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.

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".

13. 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

.....16/-

Judgment

apl1335.19

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

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

.....17/-

Judgment

apl1335.19

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.

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of G.C.Manjunath

and ors vs. Seetaram, reported in (2025)5 SCC 390, has held

that, "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. There has to be reasonable nexus to

official functions and the act committed".

.....18/-

Judgment

apl1335.19

It has been further held that the pivotal enquiry which

is necessary for official for 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.

It has been further held that 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. 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. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants placed

reliance on the decision in the case of Rizwan Ahmed Javed

.....19/-

Judgment

apl1335.19

Shaikh and ors vs. Jammal Patel and ors supra wherein also

the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the custody which was legal

to begin with became illegal on account of non-production of

the complainants before the Magistrate by the police officers

officially detaining the appellants at a place meant for

detaining the persons suspected of having committed an

offence under investigation. The act constituting an offence

alleged to have been committed by the accused-respondents

was certainly done by them in their official capacity though

at a given point of time it had ceased to be legal in spite of

being legal to begin with. On the totality of the facts and

circumstances of the case in our opinion the learned

Magistrate and the High Court have not erred in holding the

accused-respondents entitled to the benefit of protection

under Section 197(2) CrPC.

16. Thus, in view of the above principles, it is required to

examine the facts of this case whether in this particular case

the act complained of was in exercise of the duty or in the

.....20/-

Judgment

apl1335.19

absence of such duty or in dereliction of the duty and

whether the act complained of is in the course of the same

transaction in which the official duty was performed or

purported to be performed.

17. On going through the facts and the documents on

record, it reveals that while the applicants were performing

their official duties of patrolling, they found the non-

applicant No.1 has created obstruction by encroaching on the

road and, therefore, they have taken action in view of the

provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act. Immediately, the

report was also submitted to learned Magistrate at

Murtizapur. As the non-applicant No.1 was absent, learned

Magistrate at Murtizapur issued summons to him. The

panchanama regarding the said incident is also drawn.

Thereafter, NC Report was also filed against the non-

applicant No.1. The entry regarding the action against the

non-applicant No.1 is also taken immediately on 22.4.2017.

.....21/-

Judgment

apl1335.19

By seeking permission from the court under Section 155 of

the CrPC, the NC Report was investigated by the applicants.

18. Thus, as far as the legal duty is concerned, the present

applicants have followed the provisions of the law before

taking action against the non-applicant No.1. Subsequent to

taking action, the non-applicant No.1 has made complaint to

the Superintendent of Police. The said complaint was also

enquired by the SDPO, Murtizapur and it revealed to him

that no such incident of assault on the non-applicant No.1

has taken place and, therefore, no action was taken against

the applicants, but the non-applicant No.1 has filed a private

complaint before learned Magistrate. Admittedly, he has not

mentioned that the enquiry was conducted by the SDPO in

the said complaint. Only he has mentioned that no action

was taken regarding grievance made by him to the

Superintendent of Police. Learned Magistrate on the basis of

the statement of the non-applicant No.1 issued the process.

.....22/-

Judgment

apl1335.19

19. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances,

admittedly, the entire act committed by the applicants is

while they were discharging their official duties. The record

shows that the non-applicant No.1 is a habitual offender and

several offences are registered against him. Considering the

entire record, it reveals that while discharging their official

duties, by following due process, by taking appropriate

entries and permission, the action was taken against the non-

applicant No.1. Thus, it is relevant that the applicants, while

discharging their official duties, have taken action against the

non-applicant No.1. Moreover, the contention of the non-

applicant No.1, that he was assaulted and abused, is not

substantiated by any material and no medical certificate is

placed on record. These aspects are ignored by learned

Magistrate as well as by the revisional court. While

dismissing the revision as well as while issuing the process,

trial court and the revisional court have considered that the

act is not within the meaning of discharging official duty.

.....23/-

Judgment

apl1335.19

The trial court and the revisional court have ignored the law

laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

20. Admittedly, the non-applicant No.1 approached the

Government of Maharashtra for obtaining the sanction,

which was refused. This fact is also not mentioned in the

complaint filed by the non-applicant No.1. Admittedly, the

court cannot take cognizance in absence of sanction when

the act allegedly is committed while discharging the official

duty. However, considering the fact that the action taken by

the applicants while discharging their official duties and the

allegations levelled against the applicants are not

substantiated by any prima facie material. The cognizance is

taken without sanction.

21. For the above reasons, it has to be held that although

the allegation is levelled against the applicants, that they

have abused and assaulted the non-applicant No.1, the same

is not supported by any material and medical certificate. The

.....24/-

Judgment

apl1335.19

documents on record sufficiently show that the action is

taken by the applicants while discharging their official duties

and, therefore, the act is 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.

22. In this view of the matter, order dated 2.11.2019

passed by learned Sessions Judge, Akola in Criminal Revision

No.162/2017 and also order dated 2.8.2017 passed by

learned JMFC, Court No.1, Murtizapur below Exh.1 in MCC

No.189/2017 deserve to be quashed and set aside.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order:

ORDER

(1) The Criminal Application is allowed.

(2) The order dated 2.8.2017 passed by learned JMFC, Court

No.1, Murtizapur below Exh.1 in MCC No.189/2017 re-

registered as MCC No.1075/2017 issuing the process is

.....25/-

Judgment

apl1335.19

hereby quashed and set aside and the order dated 2.11.2019

passed by learned Sessions Judge, Akola in Criminal Revision

No.162/2017 is also quashed and set aside.

Application stands disposed of.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

!! BrWankhede !!

Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../- Date: 28/01/2026 18:33:13