In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has held that police officers cannot claim protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) when they commit acts such as killing civilians using official weapons while in plainclothes. The court dismissed an appeal filed by nine Punjab police officers accused of killing a civilian in an alleged fake encounter in 2015, and restored trial proceedings against a senior police officer who was earlier acquitted.
Read also: Supreme Court rejects Karnataka Congress MLA Vinay Kulkarni's plea seeking extension of time to
The case pertained to the alleged killing of a man named Mukhjit Singh alias Mukha on June 16, 2015, who was shot at from close range by a group of nine police officers in plainclothes using official weapons. The officers surrounded the victim's car near Verka in Amritsar and opened fire without warning. A friend of the deceased witnessed the incident and filed a complaint, accusing the officers of staging a fake encounter.
Following public outrage, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) found that the police's statement that they had acted in self-defence during the encounter with gangster Jaggu Bhagwanpuria was false. The SIT recommended quashing the original FIR and filing charges against eight officers under Section 304 of the IPC. The complainant also accused then Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Parampal Singh of destroying evidence by removing the car's number plate at the scene.
Read also: Supreme Court Refuses to Entertain Plea Seeking NEET UG 2025 Final Answer Key Before Results
The high court had earlier upheld the charges against the nine officers but had quashed the proceedings against the DCP citing lack of sanction under Section 197 CrPC. However, the Supreme Court reversed the decision.
"Equally untenable is the plea that cognizance was barred for want of sanction under Section 197 CrPC. The petitioners are accused of surrounding a civilian vehicle in plain clothes and jointly firing upon its occupant," a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said.
The court found that such actions have no reasonable connection with official duties such as maintaining public order or making arrests, and hence do not enjoy protection under Section 197 CrPC.
"The availability of official firearms, or even a wrongful official purpose cannot convert actions wholly outside the colour of authority into actions done 'while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty'," the court said.
Read also: Supreme Court AoR Exam 2025 Scheduled for June 16–21: Check Venue, Entry Gates, and Sitting Plan
For the DCP, the Court restored the criminal complaint under Section 201 IPC (destruction of evidence), highlighting that removal of vehicle registration plates cannot be considered official act.
"Official duty cannot be invoked as a cover for actions done with intent to defeat the course of justice as laid down by this Court in Gauri Shankar Prasad vs State of Bihar," the Court ruled.
The Court emphasised that the summons order against the DCP was supported by the statements of witnesses and should be evaluated during the trial and not quashed prematurely.
With this verdict, the trial against the nine officers and the proceedings against the DCP for tampering with evidence are set to resume in accordance with law.
Case Title: HEAD CONSTABLE RAJ KUMAR ETC. VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s): Ms. Rekha Palli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Chritarth Palli, Adv. Mr. Deepak Samota, Adv. Mr. Nilanjan Sen, Adv. Mr. Ajay Nagpal, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Jain, Adv. Mr. Shubham Bhalla, AOR Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, AOR Mr. Saksham Maheshwari, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, AOR Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR Mr. Hassan Zubair Waris, Adv. Ms. Shivangi Singh Rawat, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Sharma, AOR Ms. Osheen Bhat, Adv.
