The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur has refused to interfere with criminal proceedings against a police constable accused of allegedly assaulting a complainant inside the Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s court premises. The Court held that the alleged act could not be treated as part of the constable’s official duty and, therefore, prior prosecution sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not required.
Justice Ravi Chirania dismissed the petition filed by Constable Vinod Kumar, challenging the order by which the revisional court had upheld the Magistrate’s decision to take cognizance of offences under Sections 342, 323, 325 and 504 of the IPC.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an incident dated July 17, 2018. According to the proceedings, the complainant was allegedly taken to the police station and subjected to custodial violence. A public protest followed, and an FIR was registered against the petitioner concerning the alleged illegal detention and violence. Police subsequently submitted a negative final report.
The complainant filed a protest petition, following which the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh, took cognizance against the petitioner on February 1, 2020. The petitioner challenged that order before the revisional court, but his challenge was rejected on May 21, 2022.
Court's Observation on Official Duty
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that Section 197 CrPC required prior government sanction before criminal proceedings could be initiated against him as a public servant.
The High Court examined the allegations and noted that the complainant was allegedly locked inside the SDM Court premises and beaten with a stick. The Court observed that such conduct could not be treated as an act performed in discharge of official duties.
The Court relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Suneeti Toteja v. State of U.P., which explains that Section 197 protection depends on whether the alleged act has a reasonable connection with official duty. The Supreme Court has also held that the provision does not apply where the alleged offence is wholly unconnected with the public servant's official functions.
The High Court further referred to its earlier decision in Gulab Singh v. State of Rajasthan, which similarly required the alleged act to be connected with the discharge of official duty before Section 197 protection could be claimed.
Decision
The Court concluded that the alleged conduct in the present case went beyond the petitioner’s official duties. It held that no prosecution sanction was necessary and found no legal infirmity in the orders passed by the courts below.
“This Court finds that there was no necessity of prosecution sanction in the present case as the said act was not done in performance of the official duty rather he acted beyond it as the agitation was against his brother who was also a police personnel.”
The High Court accordingly dismissed the petition as devoid of merit and disposed of all pending applications.
Case Details
Case Title: Vinod Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6202/2022
Judge: Justice Ravi Chirania
Decision Date: August 25, 2026
