The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by two police constables seeking protection from prosecution in a custodial death case. The Court ruled that the allegations against them did not have a sufficient connection with the discharge of official duties to attract the protection available under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (now Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita).
Justice Gajendra Singh delivered the judgment on June 16, 2026, in Rajkumar Dwivedi and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others.
Background of the Case
The case arises from the death of Pankaj Vaishnav, a 24-year-old Class-IV employee working under the District Court establishment at Indore. According to the prosecution, he was brought to the MIG Police Station, Indore, on December 19, 2015, for questioning in connection with a scooter theft case and later died while in police custody.
Following an inquiry under Section 176 CrPC, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate concluded that the death amounted to culpable homicide. A charge sheet was subsequently filed against police personnel, including the revision petitioners.
The police officials sought discharge from prosecution on the ground that prior government sanction was mandatory because the acts complained of were allegedly linked to their official duties. The trial court rejected that plea, leading to the revision before the High Court.
The petitioners argued that even if any excess had occurred during investigation, the alleged acts were connected with official functions. They contended that the law protects public servants from prosecution for acts performed while discharging official duties unless prior sanction is obtained.
The State opposed the plea and supported the trial court’s findings.
The High Court examined Supreme Court precedents dealing with the requirement of sanction for prosecuting public servants. The Court noted that protection under Section 197 applies where there is a “reasonable nexus” between the alleged act and the discharge of official duties.
However, Justice Gajendra Singh found that the allegations in the present case involved custodial violence and actions allegedly taken while the deceased was already under police control.
The Court observed that,
“It is a case where alleged use of force is when the deceased was in custody of the police in police station and there was no occasion to exercise the use of force or physical assault followed by various acts to cover up the incident.”
Referring to Supreme Court rulings on custodial violence, the Court emphasized that such allegations are viewed seriously because they concern fundamental rights and the rule of law.
Holding that the “reasonable nexus” test was not satisfied, the High Court concluded that the alleged acts could not be treated as part of official duty for the purpose of obtaining statutory protection.
The Court therefore affirmed the trial court’s order rejecting the plea for sanction protection and dismissed the criminal revision petition. No order was passed as to costs.
Case Details:
Case Title: Rajkumar Dwivedi and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 258 of 2026
Judge: Justice Gajendra Singh
Decision Date: June 16, 2026
