Introduction: The Inviolable Rule of Law
In a democracy founded on the rule of law, the police force is the sentinel of public order and the primary instrument for enforcing legal norms. This immense power, however, is not absolute. It is bounded by the Constitution, statutory safeguards, and the fundamental rights of every citizen. A critical legal question that arises at the intersection of police power and individual liberty is this: Can acts of alleged brutality, assault, and humiliation committed by police officers inside a police station be defended as part of their "official duty"? The recent judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior in Smt. Mamta Gurjar v. Pooja Kushwah & Others (MCRC-26331-2025), delivered on December 5, 2025, provides a resounding and legally nuanced answer: No.
This case is not merely a dispute between a complainant and police officials; it is a profound reiteration of the principle that the cloak of public office does not grant immunity for acts of egregious misconduct. The judgment, authored by Hon'ble Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta, serves as an essential guidepost for understanding the scope and limits of legal protection available to public servants under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), now Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. This analysis will dissect the court's reasoning, making its crucial legal distinctions accessible to both legal professionals and the common citizen.
The Allegations: A Harrowing Tale from Sheopur
The factual narrative presented before the court is stark. On October 12, 2019, complainant Pooja Kushwah's brother, Dhirendra, was allegedly intercepted by the accused police officials, including petitioner Mamta Gurjar, a Sub-Inspector, near Village Partwada. Following an altercation, Dhirendra was taken to the Bargawan police station. The complaint alleged a horrifying sequence of events:
1. Custodial Torture: Dhirendra was stripped, beaten with sticks, locked up, and threatened with an "encounter."
2. Assault on a
Female Complainant: When Pooja arrived at the station to inquire, she was
allegedly subjected to a vicious assault. The petitioner is accused of slapping
her multiple times, beating her with a stick on various parts of her body, and
pulling off her dupatta. Another accused allegedly bit her.
3. Medical Evidence
and Official Apathy: Both siblings suffered injuries requiring medical
treatment. Repeated complaints to superior police authorities allegedly yielded
no action, forcing the complainant to approach the Judicial Magistrate directly
via a private complaint.
Based on this complaint, the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Sheopur, took cognizance of offences including wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement, voluntarily causing hurt, and criminal intimidation (Sections 341, 342, 323, 294, 506 Part-I read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code).
The Police Officer's Defence: The Shield of "Official Duty"
The accused police officials, including the petitioner, sought to invoke a powerful legal shield: the requirement of prior government sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC (Section 218 BNSS). Their argument was procedural and substantive:
1. Procedural Claim: They contended that since cognizance was taken in their absence without prior service of summons, the proceedings were vitiated.
2. Substantive
Defence: Their core argument was that the alleged incident occurred while they
were discharging official duties. They claimed that the complainant and her
brother had come to the police station, a scuffle ensued where police uniforms
were torn and officers were injured, and thus, their actions were intrinsically
linked to maintaining order and investigating a situation. Therefore, they
argued, no court could take cognizance of the complaint without the prior
sanction of the state government.
The trial court (JMFC) and the revisional court (Sessions Judge) both rejected their application. The petitioner then approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, seeking the quashing of the entire criminal proceeding.
The High Court's Analysis: Dissecting the "Official Duty" Defence
Justice Gupta's judgment dismantles the petitioner's defence on two primary fronts: procedural propriety and substantive legal principle.
1. The Procedural Hurdle: No Power to Review Cognizance
Before delving into the merits of the "official duty" claim, the High Court first addressed a threshold procedural issue. The petitioner had argued that the trial court should have allowed their application under Section 197. The lower courts had dismissed it, stating that once cognizance is taken, a magistrate lacks the jurisdiction to review or recall that order.
The High Court affirmed this view, relying on the seminal Supreme Court precedent in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal (2004). It clarified a fundamental procedural rule: A magistrate's power to issue process under Section 204 CrPC is not a discretionary power that can be reviewed like a civil decree. If an accused believes the cognizance order is legally flawed (e.g., for want of sanction), the remedy is not an application for recall before the same magistrate. The proper course is to challenge it before a higher court in revision or by invoking the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. This procedural grounding ensured the petition was heard on its substantive merits, not dismissed on a technicality.
2. The Substantive Core: What is "Acting in Discharge of Official Duty"?
This forms the heart of the judgment. The court engaged in a meticulous analysis to determine whether the alleged acts of custodial violence could reasonably be considered as done "while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty."
The Central Legal Test: The court reiterated the well-settled test from a catena of Supreme Court judgments: The protection of Section 197 is not blanket immunity. It applies only if the impugned act has a reasonable nexus with the discharge of official duties. The question is not whether the person was on duty, but whether the act itself can be postulated as something done by virtue of the office held, even if done in excess of authority or mistakenly.
Applying the Test to the Facts: Justice Gupta applied this test to the harrowing allegations:
1. No Pre-existing
Legal Justification: The court critically noted that the complainant and her
brother were not accused in any prior registered offence. They were not
required for interrogation or investigation at the time. The altercation
originated on the street and moved to the police station.
2. Nature of the
Alleged Acts: The allegations were of unlawful detention, brutal beating (marpit),
stripping, and humiliation inside the police station lock-up. The assault on
the female complainant who came to inquire was particularly egregious.
3. The Verdict on
Nexus: The court held that such acts of custodial torture and assault cannot,
by any reasonable stretch, be considered a "demand of the moment" or
a connected part of official duty. They are not methods of investigation or
crowd control; they are manifestations of abuse of power. The court concluded: "the
alleged assault by the police officials was not the requirement/demand of the
movement, therefore, the act of the petitioner... does not fall under the
discharge of official duties."
The Weight of Precedent: Supreme Court's Unequivocal Stance
To fortify its conclusion, the judgment marshals a powerful array of Supreme Court authorities, creating an insurmountable wall against the misuse of Section 197 in such cases:
1. P.P. Unnikrishnan v. Puttiyottil Alikutty (2000): The Supreme Court held that assault by police on a person in custody is not an act done in official duty. Protection is forfeited unless force was used in legitimate self-defence or defence of property.
2. State of
Maharashtra v. Budhikota Subbarao (1993): This judgment crystallized the
"reasonable nexus" test, stating sanction is not required where the
act has no connection to official duty.
3. D.K. Basu v. State
of West Bengal (1997): A landmark case that declared custodial violence
unconstitutional and illegal. It established that torture can never be part of
the "official duty" of a police officer.
4. Devinder Singh v.
State of Punjab (2016): Reaffirmed that abuse of power and illegal acts in
custody fall outside the domain of official duty, stripping away the shield of
Section 197.
5. Dr. S.M. Mansoori
v. Surekha Parmar (2023): A recent ruling clarifying that the question of
sanction and nexus is often a mixed question of law and fact to be determined
during trial, not a ground for quashing proceedings at the threshold.
These precedents collectively establish a clear legal doctrine: Acts of torture, third-degree methods, illegal detention, and custodial assault are per se violations of law and fundamental rights. They stand completely divorced from the conception of lawful "official duty."
Conclusion: A Judgment for Accountability and Citizen Rights
The dismissal of the petition in Mamta Gurjar v. Pooja Kushwah is a significant victory for accountability and constitutional morality. The judgment underscores several indispensable principles:
1. The Uniform is Not a Shield for Crime: Being a police officer does not confer a license to commit criminal acts. The law draws a bright line between the legitimate (even if forceful) discharge of duty and criminal brutality.
2. Sanction is for
Bonafide Acts, Not Criminal Ones: The purpose of Section 197 CrPC/Section 218
BNSS is to protect public servants from vexatious litigation for actions legitimately
undertaken in the course of duty. It was never intended to be a procedural
barrier that prevents victims of serious crimes from accessing justice.
3. Custodial Violence
is an Affront to the Constitution: The judgment reinforces the Supreme Court's
view in D.K. Basu that every instance of custodial violence strikes at the rule
of law and the dignity of the individual, which the state is bound to protect.
4. Access to Justice
is Paramount: By refusing to quash the proceedings at a preliminary stage, the
High Court ensures that the complainant gets her day in court. The truth of the
allegations will now be tested through a full trial where evidence is led and
witnesses are cross-examined.
For the legal community, this case is a vital reference on the application of the sanction doctrine. For the common citizen, it is a powerful reassurance that the courts remain a bulwark against the abuse of state power. It sends a clear message to law enforcement agencies: your authority is derived from the law, and you are bound by it. When the protector becomes the predator, the law will not look away, and the uniform will provide no sanctuary. The thin blue line must never blur into a line of impunity.
0 Comments