Introduction:
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in Rajkumar Dwivedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh (CRR No. 258 of 2026), delivered a significant ruling concerning the scope of protection available to public servants under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court held that police officials accused of custodial violence and custodial death cannot claim the protection of prior governmental sanction under Section 197 CrPC when the alleged acts bear no reasonable connection with the discharge of their official duties. The decision reinforces the constitutional commitment to protecting individual liberty and human dignity against abuse of police power.
The case arose from the tragic death of Pankaj Vaishnav, a 24-year-old employee working in the Court of the Special Railway Magistrate at Indore. Belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, Vaishnav was allegedly brought to the MIG Police Station, Indore, on December 19, 2015, for interrogation in connection with a scooter theft case. According to the prosecution, he was subjected to violence while in police custody and subsequently died inside the police station. Although the initial version projected the incident as a case of suicide, subsequent inquiries raised serious doubts regarding the circumstances surrounding his death.
Given the gravity of the allegations, an independent judicial inquiry was conducted under Section 176 CrPC by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The inquiry reportedly concluded that the death was not a simple case of suicide but amounted to culpable homicide. Following the inquiry, criminal proceedings were initiated against police personnel, including two constables and a Station House Officer.
A chargesheet was filed alleging offences under Sections 306, 342, and 193 of the Indian Penal Code, relating respectively to abetment of suicide, wrongful confinement, and giving false evidence. During the course of proceedings, the accused police officials sought protection under Section 197 CrPC, contending that the alleged acts had been performed during the discharge of official duties and therefore prosecution could not proceed without prior sanction from the competent government authority.
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether acts allegedly committed by police officials during custodial interrogation, resulting in the death of a detainee, could be treated as acts done in the discharge of official duties so as to attract the protection of Section 197 CrPC. The Court’s determination of this question required an examination of the nature and limits of statutory immunity granted to public servants and its relationship with allegations of custodial violence.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioners, who were serving police constables, challenged the order of the Trial Court refusing to extend the protection of Section 197 CrPC. Their principal argument was that the deceased had been brought to the police station in connection with a criminal investigation relating to the alleged theft of a scooter. Since questioning suspects and conducting investigations form an integral part of police functions, any actions taken during such interrogation, according to the petitioners, were inseparably linked with the discharge of official duties.
The petitioners contended that Section 197 CrPC was enacted to protect public servants from unnecessary harassment and frivolous criminal proceedings arising out of actions performed while carrying out official responsibilities. They argued that the purpose of the provision would be defeated if criminal courts were permitted to proceed against police personnel without first obtaining sanction from the government whenever allegations emerged from the performance of investigative functions.
It was further submitted that there existed a direct nexus between the alleged conduct and the official duties of the accused. The interrogation of suspects, collection of evidence, and investigation of criminal offences are statutory obligations imposed upon police officers. Consequently, even if excesses were alleged during the course of such investigation, the acts would still retain their official character. Therefore, before taking cognizance of the offences, the competent authority’s sanction was mandatory.
The petitioners also attempted to rely upon judicial precedents emphasizing that protection under Section 197 CrPC extends not only to lawful acts but also to acts that are reasonably connected with official duties. According to them, courts should examine whether the impugned conduct arose from the discharge of official functions rather than whether the conduct itself was legal or illegal. Since the incident occurred in the course of police investigation, the prosecution could not proceed without prior sanction.
The State, represented by the Government Advocate, opposed the revision petition and supported the order of the Trial Court. The prosecution argued that the allegations involved custodial violence leading to the death of an individual who was under complete police control inside the police station. Such acts, it was submitted, could never form part of any legitimate police function and therefore could not attract statutory protection.
The State emphasized that the judicial inquiry conducted under Section 176 CrPC had revealed circumstances suggesting serious misconduct by the police personnel. The inquiry indicated that the deceased had suffered violence while in custody and that efforts were allegedly made to conceal the true nature of the incident. These allegations, according to the prosecution, completely severed any connection between the acts complained of and the lawful discharge of official duties.
The prosecution further highlighted that no proper entries regarding the custody or interrogation of the deceased were made in the police records. The absence of such entries, coupled with allegations of wrongful confinement and manipulation of evidence, demonstrated that the accused were acting outside the scope of their lawful authority. Consequently, the requirement of sanction under Section 197 CrPC was inapplicable.
The State also relied upon settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court concerning custodial violence. It argued that acts of torture, assault, wrongful confinement, and custodial death represent serious violations of fundamental rights and cannot be treated as protected official actions merely because they occurred within police premises or during an investigation. Therefore, the Trial Court had correctly refused to grant the shield of prior sanction.
Court’s Judgment:
Justice Gajendra Singh dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the Trial Court’s decision, holding that prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC was not required for prosecuting the accused police personnel in the facts of the present case.
The Court began by examining the object and scope of Section 197 CrPC. The provision seeks to protect public servants from vexatious litigation arising from acts performed in the discharge of official duties. However, the protection is not absolute. Courts have consistently held that for Section 197 to apply, there must exist a reasonable nexus between the act complained of and the official duty being performed by the public servant.
The High Court reiterated that the crucial test is whether the alleged act is so connected with official duties that it can reasonably be said to have been performed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of those duties. Merely because the accused happens to be a public servant or because the incident occurred during working hours does not automatically attract statutory protection.
Applying this principle to the facts of the case, the Court found that the allegations against the police personnel did not satisfy the requirement of a reasonable nexus. The deceased had been brought to the police station for interrogation and was under the complete control of the authorities. There was no allegation that the officers were confronting a violent crowd, controlling a riot, dispersing an unlawful assembly, or dealing with resistance during arrest. These are situations where the use of force may become necessary in the discharge of police duties.
The Court drew a clear distinction between legitimate use of force in the performance of official responsibilities and unlawful violence inflicted upon a person in custody. It observed that the present case did not involve an excess of force while performing a lawful duty. Rather, the allegations suggested that force was used against a detainee within the confines of a police station where no such necessity existed.
In a particularly significant observation, the Court noted that the case involved allegations of physical assault upon a person already in police custody, followed by attempts to conceal the true circumstances of the incident. Such conduct, if established during trial, would amount to actions entirely outside the scope of official functions. Consequently, these acts could not be regarded as having been committed while acting in the discharge of official duty.
The Court agreed with the Trial Court’s finding that the absence of relevant entries concerning the custody and interrogation of the deceased further weakened the petitioners’ claim for protection. The alleged omission indicated that the detention itself was not carried out in accordance with established legal procedures. Actions performed in violation of statutory obligations and constitutional safeguards cannot be converted into protected official acts merely because they occurred within a police station.
Justice Singh also reiterated the Supreme Court’s repeated condemnation of custodial violence and custodial deaths. The Court observed that custodial violence remains among the gravest forms of abuse of state power because it strikes at the core of human dignity and personal liberty. Individuals placed in police custody are especially vulnerable, and law enforcement authorities bear a heightened responsibility to ensure their safety and protection.
The judgment reflects the broader constitutional principle that state power must always remain subject to accountability. While public servants deserve protection against baseless prosecutions, such protection cannot become a shield for acts that violate fundamental rights. Extending Section 197 immunity to allegations of custodial violence would undermine the rule of law and weaken public confidence in the criminal justice system.
The Court emphasized that statutoryk safeguards for public servants are intended to facilitate honest performance of official duties, not to insulate unlawful conduct from judicial scrutiny. Therefore, where allegations disclose acts that are fundamentally unrelated to legitimate official functions, courts are justified in permitting prosecution without prior governmental sanction.
Having found no legal infirmity in the Trial Court’s order, the High Court concluded that the revision petition lacked merit. The Court accordingly dismissed the petition and allowed the criminal proceedings against the accused police personnel to continue in accordance with law.
The decision serves as an important reaffirmation of the principle that custodial violence cannot be disguised as official duty. It clarifies that the protection under Section 197 CrPC is available only where a genuine and reasonable connection exists between the impugned act and the discharge of official responsibilities. Acts of torture, unlawful confinement, custodial assault, or conduct intended to conceal wrongdoing fall outside the protective umbrella of the provision. By refusing to extend statutory immunity in the present case, the Madhya Pradesh High Court strengthened the principle of accountability within law enforcement and underscored the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding constitutional rights against abuse of authority.