Guwahati: The Allahabad High Court has denied relief to four Uttar Pradesh police officials accused of abusing, assaulting, and unlawfully confining a doctor and his companions.
A bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh made the sharp observation, “Police uniform is not license to assault innocent citizens,” while refusing to grant relief to the accused officers.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
The court clarified that the court can prosecute a public servant without prior government sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) if their actions fall outside the scope of their official duties.
According to Live Law, Justice Singh’s bench prima facie found that the accused police officials had a case against them, as they had been booked under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 342 (wrongful confinement), and 394 (voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
a bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh delivered a strong rebuke, stating, “Police uniform is not license to assault innocent citizens,” while hearing a plea from the accused officers seeking to halt prosecution. The court prima facie found sufficient evidence to proceed against them under IPC Sections 323 (hurt), 342 (wrongful confinement), and 394 (robbery).
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
The court further clarified that prior government sanction is not necessary to prosecute public servants under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for actions that occur outside the scope of their official duties.
According to Live law Justice Singh’s bench made the observations while hearing a plea from the accused police officials seeking to avoid prosecution. The court prima facie found sufficient evidence to proceed against them under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 342 (wrongful confinement), and 394 (voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
According to the allegations, the complainant, a doctor, was returning from Kanpur to Farrukhabad when his car slightly brushed against a vehicle belonging to the accused police officials, who were with the Special Operations Group (SOG) in Kannauj.
The accused cops allegedly intercepted the doctor’s car, then proceeded to abuse and assault him and his companions.
Further, the cops allegedly damaged the doctor’s mobile phone, snatched his gold chain and cash, and forcibly took them to a police post, where they allegedly detained them for approximately 90 minutes.
The accused police officials approached the High Court challenging the ongoing proceedings and a January 2024 summoning order.
They claimed the doctor was driving rashly and caused the collision, asserting they only issued a warning, leading to a false retaliatory complaint.
They also argued for protection under Section 197 CrPC, stating they were on patrolling duty at the time.
However, the Additional Government Advocate (AGA) countered these arguments, asserting a prima facie case existed based on the allegations.
The Allahabad High Court, in its judgment, cited the purpose of Section 197 CrPC: to shield responsible public servants from potentially false or vexatious criminal proceedings for actions within their official capacity.
The Court clarified that one must construe the expression “any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty” in section 197 CrPC neither narrowly nor widely, stating that the correct approach is to strike a balance between the two extremes.
The Court added that one can only consider a public servant to be acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duty if their act lies within the scope and range of those duties.
In reviewing the case, the Court observed that the applicants were not on patrolling duty at the location during the time of the alleged incident.
Moreover, it found that the alleged assault and robbery had no reasonable or rational connection to the applicants’ official duties.
Observing that the alleged acts were unrelated to the applicants’ official duties and thus did not require prior sanction for prosecution, the Court dismissed their plea.