The Allahabad High Court recently refused to quash criminal proceedings against four police officials accused of abusing, assaulting and unlawfully confining a doctor and his companions..Justice Raj Beer Singh said that police uniform cannot be a shield for unlawful acts.The Court, while dismissing the plea filed under Section 528 (inherent powers of High Court) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), stressed 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 Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).“Merely because the applicants are police officials, it would not provide any shield to the applicants. Police uniform is not licence to assault innocent citizens,” the Court said..The accused, Sub-Inspector Animesh Kumar and Constables Kuldeep Yadav, Sudhir and Dushyant, had approached the High Court seeking quashing of a complaint case filed against them under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 342 (wrongful confinement) and 394 (voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery) of the Indian Penal Code.The case arose from an incident on June 28, 2022, when the complainant, a doctor, was returning from Kanpur along with his staff. His vehicle reportedly brushed against the police officials’ car. Later that night, it was alleged, three cars intercepted the complainant’s vehicle near Khudaganj, and the police personnel dragged the complainant and his companions out, abused and assaulted them, snatched a gold chain and cash, and forcibly detained them at Saraimeera police post for about one and a half hours. .The complainant and his companions were medically examined with injury reports corroborating the incident..The applicants argued that they were on patrolling duty at the time and claimed the complaint was a counterblast after they warned the complainant for rash driving. They contended that prosecution without sanction under Section 197 CrPC was impermissible as the acts were committed during discharge of official duties..However, the Court rejected these arguments..Referring to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Om Prakash Yadav v. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay, Justice Singh reiterated that while Section 197 protects public servants from vexatious litigation for acts done in discharge of official duties, this protection applies only where there is a “reasonable connection” between the act and official duty..The Court found that no such connection existed in the present case. There was no material to show that the applicants were on authorized patrol duty at the time of the alleged incident. No General Diary entry was placed on record to support the claim. The act of assaulting civilians, damaging their property and confining them unlawfully could not be said to have been committed in discharge of official duty, the Court said.“It is not the case of applicants that complainant or his companions committed any crime or any case was registered against them. Even otherwise, the act of assault and commission of robbery has no reasonable or rational nexus with discharge of official duty,” the Court noted..The Court also found that the complainant’s allegations were supported by his testimony recorded under Section 200 CrPC, the corroborative witness statements recorded under Section 202 CrPC, and the medical examination reports showing injuries..In view of these findings, the High Court concluded that a prima facie case was made out against the accused officials. Hence, the plea for quashing the criminal proceedings was dismissed..[Read Order]
