Patna HC Quashes Case Against SHO Accused Of Twisting Woman At Station, As Magistrate Failed To Consider Section 197 Protection

The complainant alleged that, after her husband was brought to Akbarpur Police Station in connection with a criminal case, the petitioner—then the Officer-in-Charge—twisted her hand, abused her, pulled her hair and removed her from the station; she also alleged that he took Rs. 5,000 from her fallen bag

The Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 323, 403 and 504 IPC against the petitioner and others on 2 May 2015. The petitioner’s revision was dismissed on 8 January 2016, after which he sought to quash both orders, arguing that the complaint arose from his official handling of the complainant’s husband and that prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC was required

Section 197 CrPC requires prior sanction for prosecution of a qualifying public servant where the alleged offence was committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty. The alleged act need not fall strictly within the limits of the officer’s authority; protection may apply if there is a reasonable connection between the act and official duty. It does not, however, cover every act merely because the accused holds public office

The Court relied on S.K. Zutshi v. Bimal Debnath, (2004) 8 SCC 31, and State of Orissa v. Ganesh Chandra Jew, (2004) 8 SCC 40, for these principles

The petitioner was admittedly the Officer-in-Charge, and the alleged events occurred at the police station while the complainant sought her husband’s release after he had been brought there in connection with a criminal case

The Court considered that context sufficient to require examination of whether the alleged conduct—even if excessive—was reasonably connected with the petitioner’s official functions. Because the Magistrate had not considered Section 197 or the sanction question before taking cognizance, the cognizance order could not be sustained

It quashed the Sessions Judge’s revisional order dated 8 January 2016 and the Magistrate’s cognizance order dated 2 May 2015, together with consequential proceedings, qua the petitioner, and allowed the petition