Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC is a Legal Mandate, Not a Mere Technicality: Kerala High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Police Officers

Public Servants Cannot Be Prosecuted Without Government Approval for Acts Done in Official Duty – In a decisive ruling Kerala High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against three police officers, holding that the trial court had wrongly taken cognizance of the offences without obtaining the mandatory sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The court emphasized that protection under Section 197 CrPC is not a privilege but a necessity to ensure that public servants are not subjected to vexatious litigation for acts done in the course of their official duties.
Delivering the verdict in OP(Crl) No. 263 of 2015 – Ajaynath & Others v. N. Shajitha Beevi & Others, Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath observed, "The protection given under Section 197 CrPC is to prevent public servants from being harassed through criminal proceedings for actions undertaken in the discharge of their official duties. Cognizance taken without sanction is legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside."
The case arose from an altercation during a beach festival in Alappuzha, where the complainant, an advocate, alleged that police officers had used excessive force against her family. The High Court ruled that since the officers were acting in the course of their duty, prosecution could not be initiated against them without prior government sanction.
"A Public Servant Cannot Be Dragged into Court for Enforcing Law and Order" – Kerala High Court Defends Legal Safeguards for Officers on Duty
The incident that led to the criminal proceedings occurred on December 29, 2013, at the Alappuzha beach festival. The third respondent, Advocate Bijily Joseph, attempted to park his vehicle in a VIP parking area, leading to a confrontation with the police officers on duty. When directed to move his vehicle, he allegedly refused and engaged in a heated argument with the officers. The police later registered an FIR against him for obstruction of duty and verbal abuse.
After twelve days, his wife, Advocate N. Shajitha Beevi, filed a private complaint against the police officers, alleging that:
•    They physically assaulted her husband.
•    They snatched his mobile phone and destroyed the memory card containing a recording of the altercation.
•    She herself was dragged into a police vehicle, assaulted, and unlawfully detained.
The Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha, conducted an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC and took cognizance of offences under Sections 323, 294(b), 339, 352, 354, 354B, 384, 120B, 204, 211, 503, 509, and 500 of the IPC, along with Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
The police officers challenged this order in the Kerala High Court, arguing that their actions were taken in the course of maintaining public order and that the law required the State Government’s sanction before they could be prosecuted.
"When an Officer is Acting in Official Duty, the Shield of Section 197 CrPC is Absolute" – High Court Declares Trial Court’s Order Illegal
The High Court ruled that the trial court had acted in violation of legal principles by taking cognizance without obtaining prior sanction from the government. Justice Edappagath noted, "Section 197 CrPC is meant to ensure that public servants can perform their duties without fear of vexatious litigation. It is a statutory requirement, and its absence renders the entire proceedings invalid."
Rejecting the argument that the police officers were acting in their private capacity, the court observed, "The entire incident took place while the petitioners were managing public order at a government-organized event. There is a clear and reasonable connection between their actions and their official duties. The requirement of sanction cannot be bypassed merely because allegations have been made against them."
The High Court cited Supreme Court precedents, reinforcing that:
•    If an act is reasonably connected to an officer’s duty, sanction under Section 197 CrPC is required.
•    Even if an officer exceeds his authority, as long as his actions stem from official duty, prosecution without sanction is barred.
•    The very purpose of Section 197 CrPC is to protect public servants from undue harassment through criminal litigation.
The Kerala government had also issued a notification under Section 197(3) CrPC, extending protection to all members of the state police force engaged in maintaining public order, further reinforcing the necessity of sanction in this case.

"No Court Can Ignore the Legal Requirement of Sanction – High Court Quashes Proceedings, Directs Fresh Consideration if Sanction is Sought"
Setting aside the trial court’s order, the High Court ruled, "The impugned order to the extent of taking cognizance against the petitioners for offences under Sections 323, 294(b), 339, 352, 384, 120B, 204, 211, 503, 509, and 500 of IPC and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act is hereby quashed."
However, the court clarified that the complainant was free to approach the State Government for sanction if she wished to pursue the case further. It also allowed the police officers to move for discharge in respect of the remaining charges under Sections 354 and 354B IPC, which do not require prior sanction.
With this ruling, the criminal proceedings against the officers were halted unless the State Government expressly permitted their prosecution.
"Legal Protection for Public Servants Cannot Be Dismissed for the Sake of Convenience" – Kerala High Court’s Ruling Sets a Strong Precedent
This judgment is a strong affirmation of the legal safeguards provided to public servants under Section 197 CrPC, ensuring that police officers and other officials are not unfairly prosecuted for actions taken in their official capacity.

The High Court’s ruling sends a clear message:
•    No court can ignore the statutory requirement of sanction before prosecuting public servants for acts done in their official duty.
•    Police officers should not face criminal proceedings merely for enforcing law and order.
•    Section 197 CrPC is not a procedural technicality but a substantive safeguard meant to prevent the misuse of criminal law against government officials.
•    With this verdict, the Kerala High Court has reaffirmed the importance of protecting public servants from unwarranted legal harassment, ensuring that they can perform their duties without the constant threat of wrongful prosecution.

Date of Decision: 11 March 2025