Official Duty Shield Cannot Protect Police from Prosecution for Illegal Detention
Hyderabad: In a landmark order emphasizing police accountability and procedural safeguards, the Telangana High Court has made clear that police officers cannot escape criminal prosecution if their actions prima facie reveal offenses such as wrongful imprisonment, illegal detention and abuse of official power.
Observing that allegations of coercive police conduct and abuse of power warrant criminal scrutiny, the court made it clear that the official duty shield under Section 197 CrPC cannot be used to protect illegal acts.
While dismissing the quash petitions filed by constables Rupavath Pavan and Namindla Shankar (SI and CI of Begum Bazar police station in 2024), Justice N. Tukaramji asked the High Court to quash the criminal investigation initiated against them before the Trial court based on a private complaint filed on allegations of illegal detention, abuse of power and filing of a frivolous criminal case against an Advocate Vijay Gopal for social media comments. Against prohibitory orders issued by police under Section 144 of CrPC during public examinations. Based on his comment on a social media post regarding prohibitory orders, registered Begum Bazar SI Rupavath Pavan filed a complaint and CI Namindla Shankar registered an FIR against Vijay Gopal.
However, the Telangana High Court ruled erroneously against Vijay Gopal in registering the FIR and he was given liberty to challenge the abuse of police power.
Later, Vijay Gopal moved to the XVII Palace in Nampally. He filed a private complaint against the police officers in the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court. In his private complaint before the magistrate court, Vijay Gopal also alleged that he was summoned to the police station around 4.30 pm on April 26, 2023, on the pretext of investigation and was illegally detained till 11.30 pm without due process. The applicant alleged that despite his repeated requests to leave, the police officers detained him at the police station while their examination continued.
He also alleged that he was not issued a valid notice under Section 41-A of CrPC and was forced to sign the consent documents without being given a copy of the notice. The complainant accused the police officers of violating the Supreme Court rules on arrests and mandatory procedural safeguards in the Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar decision.
The complainant also alleged violation of the Supreme Court’s directions in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh regarding installation and storage of CCTV footage in police stations. He stated that although RTI applications were made requesting security camera footage from the police station between 16.00 and midnight on the relevant date, no footage was provided.
Based on the allegations, the magistrate court prosecuted Sub-Inspector Rupavath Pavan for offenses under Sections 182, 211 and 506 IPC, while Sections 166A(b), 211, 220, 340 read with Sections 342 and 506 IPC.
Challenging the proceedings, the two police officers approached the Supreme Court under Article 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking quashing of the criminal cases. They argued that the FIR and subsequent police actions were taken in the discharge of official duties and, therefore, the prosecution could not proceed without prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC.
The officers also argued that the allegations did not reveal the nature of the alleged crimes and that continuing the trial would amount to an abuse of the legal process.
Vijay Gopal argued that illegal detention and coercive behavior cannot be considered as actions taken in the discharge of official duty.
After perusing the material on record, the Supreme Court observed that the allegations of illegal detention before registration of FIR, coercion in obtaining signatures on Section 41-A notices and abuse of police power, if held true, reveal cognizable offenses warranting prima facie trial.
The court held that protection under Section 197 CrPC is available only if the acts complained of have a reasonable nexus with official duties. Referring to the Supreme Court decisions in Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, the Court observed that manifestly illegal acts or abuse of power would fall outside the ambit of such protection.
The Supreme Court also stated that the allegations of non-compliance with Section 41-A CrPC guidelines and failure to preserve CCTV footage raise serious concerns in terms of procedural safeguards and police accountability.
Finding that the issues involved controversial facts that required the evaluation of evidence during the trial, the Court rejected the petitions for reversal submitted by the police officers and instructed the criminal court of peace to continue the trial in accordance with the law.
