Protection under Section 197 CrPC is Not a Cloak for Unlawful Acts Committed Outside Official Duty: Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan High Court delivered a significant ruling concerning the scope of protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Justice Manoj Kumar Garg held that the protection of prosecution sanction cannot be claimed when the alleged acts are not connected with official duties, dismissing the plea of a Sub-Inspector accused of misconduct.

The Court reaffirmed that public servants cannot hide behind their official status to escape criminal liability for acts unconnected with their official functions, thereby strengthening the jurisprudence around government accountability.

The case arose when Mithu Singh, a serving Sub-Inspector of Rajasthan Police, filed a revision petition challenging the trial court’s refusal to dismiss proceedings against him under Section 197 CrPC. Mithu Singh was implicated in a serious allegation of forcibly entering the complainant Ratni Bai’s residence, along with others, assaulting her minor child, and using caste-based derogatory language, while she was in judicial custody. He was charged under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The trial court had dismissed Singh’s application under Section 197(2) CrPC, noting that the acts alleged were personal in nature and not connected with his official duties.

The core legal question before the High Court was whether the acts attributed to Mithu Singh were "reasonably connected" to his discharge of official duties, thereby requiring prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC before prosecution.

Justice Manoj Kumar Garg, after extensively referring to precedents including P. Arulswami v. State of Madras, S.B. Saha v. M.S. Kochar, and P.K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim, ruled emphatically: "The protection given under Section 197 CrPC is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act."

The Court observed that Mithu Singh, at the relevant time, was posted in another district (Ajmer) and the alleged misconduct occurred at Chittorgarh. Hence, the acts were not performed in discharge of his official duties but were personal transgressions.

It was further stressed: "It is not the nature of the offence that decides the applicability of Section 197, but whether the act was committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duties."

Quoting State of H.P. v. M.P. Gupta, the Court reiterated that Section 197 is intended "to protect responsible public servants against vexatious proceedings but cannot be invoked for private acts having no nexus with official duty."

Justice Garg detailed that the legislative purpose of Section 197 CrPC is to shield public servants only when there exists a reasonable connection between the alleged act and the official duty.

He pointedly noted: "If the omission or neglect on the part of the public servant to commit the act complained of could have made him answerable for a charge of dereliction of duty, then only such act would warrant protection under Section 197."

In Mithu Singh’s case, there was no such reasonable connection. Consequently, the Court held that no prior sanction was required for his prosecution and dismissed the revision petition, upholding the trial court’s reasoned decision.

In a well-reasoned order, the Rajasthan High Court emphasized the narrow scope of protection under Section 197 CrPC and dismissed the attempt to shield misconduct under the pretext of official duty. The judgment sends a clear message that public office is not a license for impunity when acts are committed beyond the lawful scope of authority.

Date of Decision: 23 April 2025