Prosecution of police officials for acts in discharge of official duty requires prior sanction.

The petitioner-complainant alleged that the accused persons, including police officials and local residents, entered her house, assaulted her, committed theft, and damaged household articles.

The complaint was supported by the petitioner’s statement on solemn affirmation and the statements of three enquiry witnesses, E.Ws. 1–3.

The Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur West, dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), by order dated 16 December 2022.

The petitioner challenged that order before the High Court through the present criminal miscellaneous application.

1. Whether the Magistrate’s dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 CrPC disclosed any apparent illegality or error warranting interference by the High Court?

2. Whether the allegations and enquiry materials disclosed a prima facie criminal case against the police officials and other accused persons sufficient for issuance of process?

3. Whether prosecution of the police officials was barred in the absence of prior governmental sanction for acts allegedly performed in discharge of official duty?

The Court applied Section 203 CrPC, under which a Magistrate may dismiss a complaint where, after considering the complainant’s examination and the result of the enquiry or investigation, there is insufficient ground for proceeding.

An order under Section 203 CrPC is a final order and is ordinarily challengeable through a criminal revision rather than an interlocutory remedy.

At the stage of taking cognizance or issuing process, the Magistrate must determine whether the materials disclose a prima facie case, but must also apply judicial mind and must not act mechanically on vague or unsubstantiated allegations; issuance of process has serious consequences.

The Court further applied the principle underlying Section 197 CrPC that prior sanction is required before prosecuting a public servant for acts reasonably connected with the discharge of official duty.

The Court accepted that a prima facie case is the relevant threshold at the cognizance stage, but held that this does not permit the Magistrate to rely mechanically on vague allegations merely because they are repeated in the complaint and supported by interested or closely connected witnesses.

The enquiry witnesses were family members or neighbours of the complainant and, according to the Court, primarily confirmed that police vehicles had visited the house, without providing sufficiently specific or credible support for the alleged assault, looting, or damage.

The Court also treated it as undisputed that the police officials had gone to the complainant’s house in search of her brother-in-law, Jugal Kishor Sahani, pursuant to their official duty.

Since the alleged acts of the police officials were connected with that official action and no governmental sanction had been obtained, prosecution against them could not be maintained.

On the totality of the materials, the Magistrate’s refusal to proceed was neither mechanical nor legally erroneous.

It further held that the allegations and enquiry evidence were vague and insufficient to establish a prima facie case, and that prosecution of the police officials was additionally impermissible in the absence of the requisite sanction for acts performed in discharge of official duty.

The criminal miscellaneous application was accordingly dismissed, and the Magistrate’s order was left undisturbed.