Kerala High Court: In a writ petition challenging the order dated 27 August 2025 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Chittoor, directing the petitioner to obtain prior sanction from the government under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), before proceeding against the accused police officials, the Single Judge Bench of G. Girish , J., held that where the applicability of Section 197 CrPC depends upon disputed questions of fact, particularly whether the alleged acts of public servants bear a reasonable nexus with the discharge of their official duties, the issue of prior sanction should not be decided at the threshold but may be deferred until the evidence is recorded during trial. The Court accordingly set aside the Magistrate’s order and directed that the complaint be proceeded with in accordance with law, leaving the question of sanction to be decided at the appropriate stage after appreciation of evidence.
Background
The petitioner, a sepoy in the Indian Army, alleged that he was brutally assaulted by the Sub-Inspector and Civil Police Officers of Kollengode Police Station while attending the Aarattu festival at Kollengode Temple on 5 January 2019. He sustained injuries requiring hospitalisation and subsequently lodged complaints with the Superintendent of Police, Palakkad, and his Commanding Officer also sought departmental action.
Instead of acting on his complaint, the police registered an FIR against the petitioner 9 days later, accusing him of obstructing police officers and assaulting them while they were performing official duties.
The petitioner then filed a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittoor. After recording the sworn statements of the complainant and witnesses under Section 200 CrPC, the Magistrate directed the petitioner to obtain prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC before proceeding against the accused police officials. The petitioner challenged this order before the Sessions Court, Palakkad, which found that the Magistrate had not applied his judicial mind to the case and had failed to discuss whether the alleged offences were committed by the police officials in discharge of their official duty. The matter was accordingly remitted back to the Magistrate for fresh consideration. The Magistrate, however, reiterated his earlier finding that sanction was required, resulting in the impugned order now under challenge.
The government later refused to grant sanction, stating that the petitioner had been injured in a fight between two factions during a percussion performance at the festival, and that none of the on-duty police personnel had assaulted him. This prompted the petitioner to challenge both the Magistrate’s order and the government’s refusal before the High Court.
Analysis and Decision
The Court allowed the writ petition, holding that it was premature to decide the issue of sanction at the pre-trial stage. The Court ruled that where the alleged acts of public servants are disputed and the connection with official duty requires factual examination, the issue of sanction should ordinarily be determined after evidence is recorded.
The Court observed that the Magistrate had effectively taken cognizance of the complaint by recording the sworn statements of the complainant and witnesses under Section 200 CrPC. It held that the crucial question of whether the alleged assault by the police officers bore a reasonable nexus with the discharge of their official duties could not be determined at the threshold and required a detailed appreciation of evidence during trial.
The Court also took note of the unexplained delay of 9 days in registering the FIR against the petitioner, observing that the petitioner’s contention that the case was registered as a retaliatory counterblast to his complaint against the police could not be ignored. While recognising that police personnel are entitled to use reasonable and minimum force for maintaining law and order, the Court clarified that they cannot claim the protection of Section 197 CrPC for acts of unjustified physical violence merely because they were on official duty. It further held that the government’s refusal to grant sanction was not determinative of the issue, as the factual foundation for invoking the protection under Section 197 CrPC remained disputed and could only be resolved after evidence was led.
In reaching its conclusion, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in P.K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim, (2001) 6 SCC 704; Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2016) 12 SCC 87 and Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand, (2012) 12 SCC 72, which collectively establish that the necessity of prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC may arise at different stages of the proceedings and, in appropriate cases, can be determined only after the evidence has been recorded.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the Magistrate’s order directing the complainant to obtain prior sanction from the government before proceeding against the accused police officials. It directed the Magistrate to continue with the private complaint in accordance with law and to defer the determination of whether sanction under Section 197 CrPC was required until after the completion of evidence at trial. The Court also clarified that the trial court must decide the issue independently and without being influenced by the government’s order refusing sanction.
[Midhun M. v. State of Kerala, W.P. (Crl.) No. 658 of 2026, 31-7- 2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. K.R. Rajkumar, Mr. Jagadeesh Lakshman, Mr. Aromalunni M.S., Mr. R.K. Rakesh, Mr. Sreeram Ojas and Ms. Sreelakshmi P.S., Advocates.
For the Respondents: Ms. Neelanjana Nair, Public Prosecutor