Killing Civilian With Official Guns In Plain Clothes Not Part Of Police Duty; S.197 CrPC Sanction Not Needed To Prosecute : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently refused to exonerate Punjab police officials in the alleged fake encounter killing of a civilian, whom the police officials shot while they were in plain clothes.
The Court rejected the accused police officials’ argument that sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was necessary for prosecuting them. Instead, the Court said that the accused officials have targeted the deceased using their official arms while they were not in uniform, which bears no reasonable nexus to the duties of maintaining public order or effecting a lawful arrest.
“Equally untenable is the submission that cognizance was barred for want of sanction under Section 197 CrPC. The petitioners stand accused of surrounding a civilian vehicle in plain clothes and jointly firing upon its occupant. Such conduct, by its very nature, bears no reasonable nexus to the duties of maintaining public order or effecting lawful arrest. The availability of official firearms, or even an erroneous official objective cannot transmute acts wholly outside the colour of authority into those “done while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty.”, the bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed.
It was the case where police claimed to have acted in self-defence during a shootout with a gangster in 2015. After the incident, the police registered an FIR under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, attributing the firing to retaliatory self-defence. However, in 2016, the complainant, a friend of the deceased, alleged it was a fake encounter and filed a complaint accusing nine police officials of murder and other offences, also naming a DCP for tampering with evidence by removing the car’s number plates.
A Special Investigation Team (“SIT”) later found the police version false, recommended charges of culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC against eight officers and proposed cancelling the original FIR. A magistrate summoned all nine officials, and the Sessions Court framed charges. In 2019, the High Court upheld the charges against the nine but quashed proceedings against the DCP, citing the absence of prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
The High Court’s decision was assailed in two separate proceedings before the Supreme Court, where one set of appeal was filed by the accused police officials against the framing of charges, and another set of appeal was filed by the complainant against the exoneration of DCP.
Affirming the High Court’s findings regarding the framing of charges against the police officials, the Court set aside that part of the High Court’s ruling which justified exoneration of the DCP of the alleged offence committed under Section 201 IPC (for disappearance of evidence).
The Court clarified that tampering with evidence, such as removing registration plates, is not an act protected under Section 197 Cr.P.C. Relying on the precedent set in Gauri Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar (2000) 5 SCC 15, the court noted that such actions are aimed at obstructing justice and fall outside the scope of duties warranting prior sanction. It ruled that the High Court had erred in quashing the complaint and restored the trial court proceedings to assess the evidence afresh.
“We believe that where the very accusation is suppression of evidence, the nexus is absent on the face of the record. In such a situation the bar of Section 197 CrPC is not attracted, and sanction is not a condition precedent to cognizance. The cloak of official duty cannot be extended to acts intended to thwart justice as held by this Court in Gauri Shankar Prasad v State of Bihar.”, the court said.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal filed by the accused police officials against their indictment and allowed the complainant’s plea against the DCP’s exoneration for offence under Section 201 IPC.
Case Title: HEAD CONSTABLE RAJ KUMAR ETC. VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 684
Click here to read/download the order
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.
