The Bombay High Court has refused to interfere with proceedings initiated against three police personnel accused of custodially assaulting a man during a murder investigation, holding that, at the present stage of the case, the alleged acts cannot be treated as part of their official duties requiring prior government sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Justice Sandesh D. Patil dismissed two criminal writ petitions filed by the police officials, while clarifying that the issue of sanction may still be reconsidered at a later stage of the trial if evidence establishes that the acts were connected with the discharge of official duties.
Background of the Case
The petitions challenged orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ichalkaranji, which had upheld the Judicial Magistrate First Class's refusal to discharge the petitioners in a criminal case pending since 2009. The Magistrate had earlier issued process against seven accused police personnel for offences under Sections 326, 325, 324, 342, 348, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the complaint, respondent Yasin B. Mankapure was called to Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Ichalkaranji, in November 2008 during the investigation of a murder case. He alleged that he was detained overnight, denied food, repeatedly pressured to confess, and brutally beaten by police officers using belts and physical force. The complaint further stated that his condition deteriorated to such an extent that a doctor advised immediate hospitalization.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Following verification of the complaint and recording of witness evidence, the Magistrate found sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused officers. Subsequent applications seeking discharge were rejected by both the Magistrate and the Revisional Court, leading to the present writ petitions.
The police officers argued that the allegations arose from acts performed while investigating a criminal offence and, therefore, any prosecution against them required prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC. They relied upon several Supreme Court decisions to contend that even where an officer exceeds official authority, sanction is necessary if there exists a reasonable connection between the act complained of and official duty.
They submitted that both the Magistrate and the Revisional Court had incorrectly interpreted Section 197 and ought not to have permitted the prosecution to proceed without prior approval from the competent government authority.
The complainant opposed the petitions, arguing that custodial torture and the use of "third-degree" methods could never form part of a police officer's lawful duties. He pointed out that the courts below had consistently held that the alleged conduct fell outside the protection of Section 197. He also explained that the complaint was filed after a delay because he had allegedly suffered paralysis and remained hospitalized following the incident.
Court's Observations
Justice Patil examined the scope of Section 197 CrPC in detail by referring to several Supreme Court judgments dealing with the requirement of prior sanction for prosecuting public servants. The Court observed that the real test is whether the alleged act bears a reasonable connection with the discharge of official duties or is merely a misuse of official position.
The Court noted that the complainant's allegation was not merely that force was used during investigation, but that he was illegally confined and assaulted to extract a confession.
"The Police Officers cannot under the guise of investigation, use third degree treatment against any person,"
the Court observed while holding that such conduct, if proved, cannot be regarded as part of official duty.
The Court further held that assaulting a suspect to obtain a confession cannot be treated as an act performed in discharge of official functions. Therefore, at the present stage, Section 197 does not bar the prosecution.
At the same time, the Court clarified that the question of sanction is not permanently closed. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, it observed that if evidence produced during trial later establishes a reasonable nexus between the alleged acts and official duties, the issue of sanction may be reconsidered.
Decision
Finding no legal error in the orders of the Judicial Magistrate First Class or the Additional Sessions Judge, the Bombay High Court dismissed Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 2509 of 2022 and 2511 of 2022. The Court held that, based on the material presently available, the petitioners could not claim that the alleged custodial assault formed part of their official duties, and therefore no interference with the pending criminal proceedings was warranted. However, it left open the question of sanction for consideration at a later stage if the evidence so requires.
Case Details:
Case Title: Sanjay Bapuso Dalvi v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (With Mahesh Suresh Kore & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.)
Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition No. 2509 of 2022 with Criminal Writ Petition No. 2511 of 2022
Judge: Justice Sandesh D. Patil
Decision Date: 9 July 2026
