Safiya Malik

The Kerala High Court has quashed the cognizance taken by the trial court against three police officials in a case arising from an incident at the Alappuzha beach festival. The Single Bench of  Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath, held that the alleged acts were reasonably connected to the discharge of official duties, thus necessitating prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court recorded that cognizance of the offenses, barring those under Sections 354 and 354B IPC, was unsustainable. The judgment directed that the complainant may approach the State Government for sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., should they be advised to do so.

The petition involved three police officers serving at the time of the alleged incident, who sought to quash the proceedings initiated by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alappuzha, on the ground of lack of prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The trial court had issued summons based on a private complaint alleging offenses under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

Also Read: "Conviction Justified, But Sentence Modified": Supreme Court Revises Life Imprisonment in POCSO and IPC Case

The allegations stemmed from an incident on December 29, 2013, during the Alappuzha beach festival. The complainant alleged that while managing traffic and maintaining public order, the petitioners wrongfully restrained her family, snatched a mobile phone, used abusive language, and pushed them into a police vehicle. The complaint claimed that these acts were committed without provocation and amounted to criminal intimidation and harassment.

The petitioners contended that the trial court had erred in taking cognizance without prior sanction, as the alleged acts were committed in the course of discharging public duties. They submitted that they were deployed for traffic control and maintenance of public order, thereby entitling them to protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The petitioners emphasized that the acts alleged were intertwined with official responsibilities.

The complainant opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioners' actions were personal and unconnected to their public duties. It was contended that the petitioners exceeded their authority and committed acts of harassment, which did not attract the protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C. The respondents further submitted that sanction was not required for offenses such as Sections 354 and 354B IPC under the Explanation to Section 197(1) Cr.P.C.

The Court examined the factual background and statutory provisions. It recorded that “there is a reasonable connection between the alleged offensive conduct and the performance of their official duty.” The Court found that the actions were carried out while managing public order at the festival and were therefore linked to official responsibilities. It observed, “the act complained of was allegedly committed by the petitioners while acting in the discharge of their official duty.”

Justice Edappagath referred to the decision in Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari, where it was held that the test for Section 197 protection is whether the act was done while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty. The Court observed, “to apply Section 197, the test is whether the act complained of was committed by the public servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty.”

The Court found that there is no universal rule for determining whether an act is reasonably connected to official duty and stated that such determination must be made on a case-specific basis. It recorded, “there cannot be any universal rule to determine whether there is a reasonable connection between the act done and the official duty, nor is it possible to lay down any such rule.”

The Court examined the Kerala Government’s notification issued under Section 197(3) Cr.P.C., which provides that members of the Kerala Police Force are deemed to be charged with the maintenance of public order. The Court found that the petitioners, while managing public order at the festival, fell within the scope of this notification. The judgment recorded, “since the petitioners were engaged in public order duties during the festival, the bar under Section 197(1) Cr.P.C., read with the notification under Section 197(3), is attracted.”

The Court also cited Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh v. Jammal Patel, noting that the protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. applies even where there is dereliction of duty, as long as the acts occurred in the course of official functions.

Summarizing the legal position, the Court recorded, “the bar created by Section 197 is absolute. In the absence of sanction where Section 197 applies, cognizance of the offence is barred.” The Court clarified that this bar may arise at different stages, including inquiry or trial.

The Court concluded that the cognizance taken by the Magistrate was unsustainable for all offenses except those under Sections 354 and 354B IPC, for which sanction is not required under the Explanation to Section 197(1) Cr.P.C. The Court recorded, “the cognizance taken for the offences except under Sections 354 and 354B of IPC is liable to be set aside.”

Also Read: RTI Cannot Be a Tool for Harassment’: Punjab and Haryana High Court Sets Aside Disclosure Orders on Third-Party Data

The Court further granted liberty to the petitioners to seek discharge at the trial court in respect of the remaining charges. It recorded, “the petitioners shall also be free to seek discharge of the offences under Sections 354 and 354B of IPC at the trial Court in accordance with law.”

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the cognizance taken against the petitioners in respect of all other charges.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Sri. M.K. Chandra Mohandas, Sri. K. Sathiyanandan Pillay, Sri. Shakthi Prakash, Harikrishnan M.S.

For the Respondents: Sri. George Mathew, Sri. S. Shanavas Khan

For the State: Smt. Sreeja V., Senior Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Ajaynath & Ors. v. N. Shajitha Beevi & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:20255

Case Number: OP(CRL.) No. 263 of 2015

Bench: Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath

[Read/Download order]