Jodhpur:<\/strong> The Rajasthan High Court has held that prior prosecution sanction under Section 197 CrPC is not required where a police officer\u2019s alleged act is completely beyond the scope of his official duty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Ravi Chirania dismissed Constable Vinod Kumar\u2019s petition challenging the cognizance order and subsequent revisional order in a case alleging illegal detention and assault.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case arose from a complaint filed by a local resident and social worker, who alleged that he was forcibly taken to the police station, illegally detained and subjected to torture. The alleged custodial violence led to a public protest, following which an FIR was registered against Constable Vinod Kumar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the police later submitted a negative final report, the complainant pursued the matter before the court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Trial Court subsequently took cognizance after the complainant filed a protest petition against the negative final report. The petitioner alleged that the court did so without properly considering the findings of the police report and the statements of police personnel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The petitioner then challenged the cognizance order before the Revisional Court. However, the revision petition was dismissed and the cognizance order was upheld.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Aggrieved by both orders, the petitioner approached the Rajasthan High Court, seeking their quashing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court noted that, according to the material on record, the complainant was locked inside the SDM Court premises and beaten with a stick by the petitioner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The constable argued that the case could not proceed without prior prosecution sanction under Section 197 CrPC, claiming that he was performing his official duties at the time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He further stated that no cognizance could have been taken in the case in relation to the acts performed by him in furtherance of his official duties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court rejected the argument. Referring to the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Suneeti Toteja v. State of U.P., the Court held that protection under Section 197 is available only when the alleged act has a reasonable connection with the officer\u2019s official duties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court also relied on its earlier decision in Gulab Singh v. State of Rajasthan, reiterating that a public servant cannot claim statutory protection for an act completely unrelated to official duty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court found that the alleged assault was not an act done in discharge of official duty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Court also noted that the petitioner had acted beyond the scope of his duties and that the allegations were specifically against him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court therefore found no legal error in the orders taking cognizance and affirming the same in revision. The petition was accordingly dismissed, and allowed the criminal proceeding to proceed against the police constable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Constable accused of beating complainant inside Court-room, Rajasthan HC rejects the plea considering an act of assault beyond the official duty. Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that prior prosecution sanction under Section 197 CrPC is not required where a police officer\u2019s alleged act is completely beyond the scope of his official duty. Justice … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":9722,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_wppp_is_locked":false,"_wppp_selected_plans":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[29,69],"tags":[3113,3107,3103,1637,3101,3106,3108,48,3104,3102,1798,3109,659,43,150,3110,3114],"class_list":["post-9721","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-top-stories","category-rajasthan-high-court","tag-assault-case","tag-cognizance-order","tag-constable-vinod-kumar","tag-criminal-proceedings","tag-custodial-assault","tag-custodial-violence","tag-illegal-detention","tag-legal-news","tag-police-assault","tag-police-constable","tag-prosecution-sanction","tag-public-servant-protection","tag-rajasthan-hc","tag-rajasthan-high-court","tag-rajasthan-legal-news","tag-revisional-court","tag-sdm-court"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9721","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9721"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9721\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9723,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9721\/revisions\/9723"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9722"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9721"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9721"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9721"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}How the case began?<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
\u2018Assault Was Not Part of Official Duty\u2019<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
HC Refuses to Quash Proceedings<\/h4>\n\n\n\n