The High Court of Jharkhand has clarified that even in cases involving alleged assault by police officers, sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure remains mandatory if the conduct bears a reasonable connection to the discharge of official duties - particularly where the incident arises from a matrimonial dispute resolved through police intervention.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Ashok Mandal, filed a private complaint alleging that police officers at Masalia Police Station assaulted him while he was summoned for a domestic quarrel. He claimed that after he beat his wife with a bamboo stick, she informed her father, who accompanied her to the police station. Upon arrival, the police summoned him, made him sit under a litchi tree inside the station campus, and beat him. The petitioner examined himself and four other witnesses, including a doctor, but did not examine his wife or father-in-law, both of whom were present during the alleged assault.
Procedural History
- 2021: Complaint (PCR) Case No.276 filed before Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dumka
- 2022: Magistrate dismissed the complaint, holding that sanction under Section 197 CrPC was mandatory and absent
- 2022: Criminal Revision No.09 filed before Sessions Judge, Dumka
- 2023: Sessions Judge affirmed dismissal, upholding the need for sanction
- 2023: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court seeking quashing of the dismissal order
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the dismissal order, arguing that the police action had no reasonable nexus to official duty and therefore did not require sanction under Section 197 CrPC.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires prior sanction for prosecution when police officers allegedly assault a complainant during the course of intervening in a matrimonial dispute, and whether such conduct bears a reasonable nexus to the discharge of official duty.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on Head Constable Raj Kumar v. State of Punjab (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 684), arguing that the assault occurred in a non-official context - after the domestic dispute had been reported - and bore no connection to lawful arrest or public order maintenance. He contended that the police acted out of personal animus or excess, not in performance of duty, and thus the protection of Section 197 CrPC should not apply.
For the Respondent/State
The State and opposite parties argued that the police were acting in response to a domestic violence complaint, a context where the Supreme Court has mandated restraint and settlement efforts. They emphasized that the petitioner was summoned in his official capacity as part of resolving the dispute, and the assault, if any, occurred during the course of this intervention. They cited Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab to argue that even excessive or wrongful acts by public servants retain a reasonable nexus to duty if they arise from the performance of official functions.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the triple test for applicability of Section 197 CrPC: (1) whether the accused is a public servant, (2) whether the act was done in discharge of official duty, and (3) whether there is a reasonable nexus between the act and the duty. The Court found all three satisfied.
"Once act or omission has been found to have been committed by public servant in discharging his duty it must be given liberal and wide construction so far its official nature is concerned."
The Court noted that the police were responding to a complaint of domestic violence - a recognized category where intervention is not only lawful but encouraged under Supreme Court guidelines. The petitioner himself admitted that the police facilitated a settlement between him and his wife, after which both returned home together. The Court held that the alleged assault, even if unjustified, occurred during the course of this official intervention and could not be severed from the duty to mediate domestic disputes.
The Court distinguished Head Constable Raj Kumar, where police in plain clothes fired upon civilians - an act wholly unrelated to duty. Here, the conduct, however improper, was rooted in the exercise of authority to resolve a complaint. The absence of examination of key witnesses (wife and father-in-law) further weakened the petitioner’s claim of malice.
The Court reaffirmed that sanction is not a procedural formality but a substantive safeguard, and its absence at the cognizance stage is fatal to prosecution unless the nexus to duty is demonstrably fanciful or non-existent.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s application was dismissed. The Court held that sanction under Section 197 CrPC is mandatory when police conduct, even if excessive, has a reasonable connection to the discharge of official duty in the context of a matrimonial dispute. The dismissal of the complaint was upheld as legally correct.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Sanction Is Not Optional in Mediation-Related Assaults
- Practitioners must now presume that any police action during domestic dispute mediation triggers Section 197 CrPC unless the conduct is demonstrably extraneous to duty
- Alleged assaults occurring during summons, counseling, or settlement attempts are presumptively protected
- Failure to seek sanction at any stage - cognizance, framing of charge, or trial - may result in automatic dismissal
Documentary Silence Undermines Allegations Against Police
- The Court’s reliance on the petitioner’s failure to examine his wife and father-in-law sets a precedent: in cases involving police intervention in private disputes, uncorroborated testimony from the complainant alone is insufficient
- Practitioners must proactively identify and subpoena all eyewitnesses present during the incident
- Absence of corroborative evidence, especially from family members involved, weakens claims of police misconduct
Settlement Context Elevates Nexus to Official Duty
- The fact that the marital dispute was resolved through police intervention strengthens the argument that the entire sequence of events - including the alleged assault - was part of official duty
- Courts will now scrutinize whether the accused’s conduct was a deviation from duty or an extension of it
- Lawyers must frame arguments around whether the act was a personal act or a perverse exercise of authority - only the former escapes Section 197 protection
