CASE NAME: Smt. Mamta Gurjar versus Pooja Kushwah and Others
CASE NUMBER: MCRC-26331-2025
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
DATE: December 05, 2025
QUORUM: Hon’ble Shri Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta
FACTS
The present petition is filed under section 482 of the CrPC (now section 528 of the BNSS) on the orders of the Sessions Judge and JMFC, Sheopur, which denied to claim for protection for the police officer under section 197 of the CrPC (section 218 of the BNSS).
The complainant, i.e., Pooja, alleged that her brother was abused and assaulted by the accused while he was riding a motorcycle on 12 October 2019. He was also alleged to have been attacked in the police station by the accused in this case. Later, when Pooja arrived at the police station and saw her brother, she asked the police authority to file a report on accused no.1. However, she was also physically abused by the officials at the station and was bitten on her shoulders. She could not sustain the physical injuries and thus fell on the ground. The three accused later admitted her to the Sanjivani Hospital, while Dhrinder had to undergo an MLC in the Community Health Center due to his pain in the groin. Subsequently, when the complainant mother spoke about the incident to the accused, they threatened to ruin her life. Later, complaints were filed with the SP (Superintendent of Police) and other high-ranking officials, but no action was taken. This ultimately led to the filing of a charge sheet in JMFC (Judicial Magistrate of First Class), and now the rejection of the pleas in both the Sessions court and JMFC has led to an appeal in the High Court.
ISSUES
Whether a custodial assault inside a police station amounted to an act done within the scope of discharging an official duty (Section 197 of CrPC) or was it outside to scope of the said Section?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 482 of the CrPC
This section grants inherent powers to the high court and is used to quash the orders of the lower court, as seen in the present case.
Section 197 of CrPC
Protects public servants from prosecution for acts done in the discharge of official duties without government sanction.
Various IPC Sections say section 294 (public obscenity), 342(punishment for wrongful confinement), 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention), and 506 (criminal intimidation) were filed against the accused.
ARGUMENTS
APPELANTS:
The accused said that she was discharging the role of a police officer at the time of the incident. She tried to control the occurrences of the event, as there was an altercation that led to the injury of the police officials. She thus contested the orders of the two courts and prayed for the protection under section 197 of the CrPC.
RESPONDENTS:
The complainant, on the other hand, contested the unlawful detention of her and her brother by the police official and stated that it was outside the scope of duty. Thus, she prayed for the dismissal of the prayer as raised by the appellant.
ANALYSIS
The court, after analyzing the arguments, concluded that the action of the police official was outside the scope of duty. The court relied on precedents like P.P. Unnikrishnan v. Puttiyottil Alikutty [(2008) 8 SCC 131], State of Maharashtra v. Budhikota Subbarao [(1993) 3 SCC], and D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, [1997) 1 SCC 416], which stated that the assault by a police official on a person in custody is outside the scope of official duty; highlighted the rational nexus between acts of the officer and official duty, and custodial violence is unconstitutional and illegal, respectively.
JUDGEMENT
The court rejected the prayer of the appellant and upheld the decisions taken by the Sessions Court and JMFC.
CONCLUSION
This judgment reinforces the principle that custodial violence or assault is simply not an act that can be cloaked with immunity under the guise of “official duty”.
By refusing to grant protection of Section 197 CrPC to such acts, the High Court ensured that public servants do not exceed the power confined to them under the guise of official duty and made sure they are always accountable for their actions to ensure public welfare.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: SHARANYA M
