The High Court allowed the criminal application filed by two police officers seeking to quash criminal proceedings and an order issuing process against them under Section 326 read with 34 IPC for alleged police atrocities during custody. The Court found that the cognizance taken by the Magistrate was illegal due to lack of sanction under Section 197 CrPC, as the acts were committed in discharge of official duty. Additionally, medical evidence, including CT Scan reports, did not support allegations of grievous hurt, with no evidence of fracture. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court emphasized that sanction is mandatory for prosecuting public servants for acts connected to official duty. The proceedings and order were quashed, setting aside the lower court decisions.
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, heard a criminal application seeking quashing of Regular Criminal Case No.338/2013 and the order issuing process against the applicants under Section 326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) -- The applicants, a retired police officer and a serving Sub Divisional Police Officer, were accused of causing grievous hurt to the complainant during police custody in connection with Crime No.139/2013 -- The complainant alleged police atrocities leading to injuries, supported by medical reports and an enquiry report -- The learned Magistrate initially issued process under Section 323 IPC, which was revised to Section 326 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge -- The applicants contended that cognizance was illegal due to absence of sanction under Section 197 CrPC, as the acts were committed in discharge of official duty, and medical evidence did not substantiate grievous injuries -- The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in G.C. Manjunath vs. Seetaram (2025)5 SCC 390, which clarified that sanction under Section 197 CrPC is required when acts are connected to official duty, even if illegal -- The Court held that the medical reports, including CT Scan, showed no evidence of fracture or grievous hurt, and the cognizance taken without sanction was erroneous -- Consequently, the application was allowed, quashing the criminal proceedings and the order issuing process
The Court allowed the criminal application, quashing and setting aside Regular Criminal Case No.338/2013 and the order issuing process against the applicants under Section 326 read with 34 IPC
Citation: 2026 LawText (BOM) (01) 147
Case Number: Criminal Application APL No.653 of 2025
Date of Decision: 2026-01-28
Case Title: The Issue of whether the criminal proceedings against the applicants, who are police officers, should be quashed due to lack of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and insufficiency of medical evidence to support allegations of grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC
Before Judge: Urmila Joshi-Phalke J.
Equivalent Citations: 2026:BHC-NAG:1353
Advocate(s): Shri Kartik Shukul, Shri J.B. Kasat
Appellant: Shri Mahesh s/o Dattatraya Chate, Shri Vikram s/o Mahadeo Sali
Respondent: Anup s/o Subhashchandra Jaiswal
Nature of Litigation: Criminal application seeking quashing of criminal case and order issuing process against police officers for alleged offences under IPC
Remedy Sought: Applicants seeking quashing and setting aside Regular Criminal Case No.338/2013 and order of issuance of process under Section 326 read with 34 IPC
Filing Reason: Applicants aggrieved by order issuing process and taking cognizance without sanction under Section 197 CrPC and based on insufficient medical evidence
Previous Decisions: Learned Magistrate issued process under Section 323 IPC; Additional Sessions Judge revised it to Section 326 IPC in Criminal Revision No.91/2013
Issues: Whether cognizance taken by the Magistrate without sanction under Section 197 CrPC is illegal Whether medical evidence substantiates allegations of grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC
Submissions/Arguments: Applicants argued that cognizance was illegal due to lack of sanction under Section 197 CrPC as acts were in discharge of official duty, and medical reports showed no grievous injuries Non-applicant argued that medical reports supported allegations of fracture and grievous hurt, justifying the proceedings
Ratio Decidendi: Sanction under Section 197 CrPC is mandatory for prosecuting public servants for acts done in discharge of official duty, and cognizance taken without such sanction is illegal; medical evidence must clearly establish grievous hurt for offences under Section 326 IPC
Judgment Excerpts: Every offence committed by a police officer does not attract Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act. The protection given under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act has its limitations. The protection is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and official duty is not merely a cloak for the objectionable act. If in doing an official duty a policeman has acted in excess of his duty, but there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of the official duty, the excess will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the public servant of the protection.
Procedural History: Crime No.139/2013 registered against complainant; complainant arrested and alleged police atrocities during custody; medical examination and enquiry report submitted; Magistrate took cognizance under Section 190 CrPC and issued process under Section 323 IPC; complainant filed revision, leading to process under Section 326 IPC; applicants filed present criminal application for quashing
