The case originated from an incident on June 28, 2022, when a doctor, traveling from Kanpur to Farrukhabad, accidentally brushed his car against a vehicle belonging to police officials posted with the SOG in Kannauj. Following the minor accident, the officers allegedly intercepted the doctor’s car, verbally abused him and his companions, and physically assaulted them.
According to the complaint, the officers also snatched the doctor’s mobile phone, gold chain, and cash before forcibly taking the group to a police post where they were unlawfully detained for approximately ninety minutes. The complaint was supported by medical evidence and witness statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of the CrPC.
The accused officers challenged the proceedings in the High Court, arguing that they had merely issued a warning and that the complainant retaliated with a false accusation. They also contended that a prosecution could not proceed without prior government sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC, since they were allegedly “on duty.”
Allahabad HC’s Stand: ‘Uniform is Not a Shield for Wrongdoing’
Dismissing the officers’ arguments, Justice Raj Beer Singh made it clear that wearing a police uniform does not grant immunity for personal misconduct. The court observed:
“Merely because the applicants are police officials, it would not provide any shield to the applicants. Police uniform is not a license to assault innocent citizens.”
The Court emphasized that Section 197 CrPC is intended to protect public servants only for acts integrally connected to their official duties. Protection cannot be claimed for actions that have no direct or reasonable connection with the discharge of official responsibilities.
ALSO READ: Call for Cyber Experts: Join FCRF Academy as Trainers and Course Creators
Citing established legal principles, the Bench held that the alleged acts — physical assault, unlawful confinement, and robbery — were neither part of official duty nor reasonably connected to any public function. Therefore, prior sanction for prosecution was not necessary.
Broader Implications: Reinforcing Accountability for Police Misconduct
The Allahabad High Court’s detailed analysis reaffirmed a critical safeguard: that Section 197 CrPC must not be allowed to become a blanket shield for rogue behavior by public servants. It reiterated that:
“The act complained of must be integrally connected or directly linked to duties as a public servant for the purpose of affording protection under Section 197 CrPC. There must be a direct or reasonable connection between the act and the official duty.”
In this case, the alleged acts — assault, robbery, and unlawful detention — were committed in personal retaliation, not in furtherance of any official function like patrolling or law enforcement.
The Court concluded that the plea for protection lacked merit and accordingly dismissed the officers’ petition.