S.197 CrPC | Prior Sanction Mandatory To Prosecute Police Officers For Acts In Excess Of Duty If Reasonably Connected To Official Functions: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently reiterated that that prior sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC and Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act is required to prosecute police officers even for acts exceeding their authority, as long as a reasonable nexus with their official duties existed.

Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act bars the institution of suits or prosecutions against certain public officials, including police officers, for acts done under the colour of or in excess of official duty, unless the prior sanction of the Government is obtained.

Similarly, Section 197 CrPC provides that courts cannot take cognisance of offences alleged to have been committed by public servants while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty, unless there is prior sanction from the appropriate Government.

“This Court, while adjudicating on instances of alleged police excess, has consistently held in Virupaxappa and D. Devaraja, that where a police officer, in the course of performing official duties, exceeds the bounds of such duty, the protective shield under the relevant statutory provisions continues to apply, provided there exists a reasonable nexus between the impugned act and the discharge of official functions. It has been categorically held that transgression or overstepping of authority does not, by itself, suffice to displace the statutory safeguard of requiring prior government sanction before prosecuting the public servant concerned”, the Court observed.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma quashed criminal proceedings against two retired police officers for alleged abuse of authority, assault, wrongful confinement, and intimidation, while investigating a case against the complainant holding that the Magistrate erred in taking cognisance without prior sanction.

“Subsequently, multiple criminal cases have been instituted against the complainant. It is in the course of the investigation of these cases that the instant allegations have been levelled against the accused persons. As noted above, any action undertaken by a public officer, even if in excess of the authority vested in them or overstepping the confines of their official duty, would nonetheless attract statutory protection, provided there exists a reasonable nexus between the act complained of and the officer's official functions”, the Court held.

The complainant had alleged that in 1999, five police officers orchestrated a vendetta against him as he had been actively prosecuting certain police officers for illegal activities. He alleged that on April 10, 1999, three police officers trespassed into his home, removed him by force, and subjected him to assault and torture at the Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station.

The following day, they allegedly procured a slate, forced the complainant to hold it with his name written on it, and took his photograph. Another incident on October 27, 1999, involved physical assault, wrongful seizure of personal belongings, and further confinement at the police station, the complainant alleged.

The complainant provided medical evidence documenting grievous injuries, including a broken tooth. The police officers were booked under Sections 326, 358, 500, 501, 502, 506 (b) read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The Court examined whether the acts complained of were reasonably connected to or performed in the discharge or purported discharge of the official duties of the accused persons, such that the statutory protection under Section 197 CrPC and Section 170 Police Act would be attracted.

The Court relied on previous decisions including D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain, to reiterate that the necessity of prior sanction is determined by whether the impugned act is reasonably connected to the discharge of official duty. In D. Devaraja, the Court held that even excessive acts by police officers attract protection if they are reasonably connected to official duties.

In Gurmeet Kaur v. Devender Gupta, the Court noted that the purpose of Section 197 CrPC is to protect state officers from unjustified prosecution while performing official duties. It clarified that the provision would not apply to acts entirely unconnected with official duties.

Applying these principles, the Court observed that although the allegations in this case were grave their nature was such that they fell within the purview of acts done “under colour of or in excess of duty,” or “purporting to act in discharge of official duty.”

The accused officers were acting in the context of investigations against the complainant, who had been declared a rowdy sheeter on August 23, 1990 by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order (West), Bengaluru City, based on a request from the Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station. Multiple cases had been registered against the complainant since then, the Court noted.

“In the circumstances at hand, we are of the considered opinion that the allegations levelled against the accused persons, though grave, squarely fall within the ambit of "acts done under colour of, or in excess of, such duty or authority," and “acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty,” as envisaged under Section 170 of the Police Act and Section 197 of the CrPC respectively”, the Court held, adding that the Magistrate was not competent to take cognisance without sanction from the appropriate Government.

The Court noted that the incident in question pertained to the period 1999–2000. Three accused had passed away, and both the remaining accused had retired and were 71 and 64 years old, respectively. Taking note of their retirement and age, the Court found that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no meaningful purpose.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals by the accused and set aside the the summoning order against them.

Case no. – Criminal Appeal No. 1759 of 2025

Case Title – G.C. Manjunath & Ors. v. Seetaram

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 399

Click Here To Read/Download Order