Telangana HC: Official Duty Shield Cannot Protect Police from Prosecution for Illegal Detention
Vijay Gopal argued that illegal detention and coercive conduct could not be treated as acts done in discharge of official duty.
Hyderabad: In a significant order, emphasizing police accountability and procedural safeguards,, the Telangana High Court has made it clear that the police officers cannot escape criminal prosecution when their actions prima facie disclose offences such as wrongful confinement, illegal detention, and abuse of official authority.
The Court observed that allegations of coercive police conduct and misuse of power warrant criminal scrutiny, making it clear that the shield of official duty under Section 197 CrPC, cannot be used to protect unlawful acts.
Justice N. Tukaramji, made it clear, while dismissing the quash petitions filed by the police officers Rupavath Pavan and Namindla Shankar ( SI and CI of Begum Bazar police station in 2024) , who requested the High court to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them before the Trial court based on the private complaint over allegations of illegal detention, abuse of authority and registration of a frivolous criminal case against an Advocate Vijay Gopal for his social media comments against the prohibitory orders issued by the police under Section 144 CrPC imposed during public examinations. Based on his comment to one social media post on the prohibitory orders, the Begum Bazar SI Rupavath Pavan logded had made a complaint and CI Namindla Shankar registered FIR against Vijay Gopal.
However, the Telangana High Court had faulted the registration of FIR against Vijay Gopal and liberty was given to him to challenge the abuse of police power.
Later, Vijay Gopal had filed private complaints before the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Nampally, against the police officers. In his private complaints before the magistrate court, Vijay Gopal further alleged that he was called to the police station at around 4.30 pm on April 26, 2023 on the pretext of enquiry and was illegally detained till about 11.30 pm without due process of law. He claimed that despite repeated requests to leave, the police officers confined him in the station while his examinations were underway.
He also alleged that no valid notice under Section 41-A CrPC was served upon him and that he was forced to sign acknowledgment papers without being furnished a copy of the notice. The complainant accused the police officers of violating the Supreme Court guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar regarding arrests and mandatory procedural safeguards.
The complainant further alleged violation of the Supreme Court directions in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh concerning installation and preservation of CCTV footage in police stations. He stated that despite filing RTI applications seeking CCTV footage from the police station between 4 pm and midnight on the relevant date, no footage was furnished.
Based on the allegations, the magistrate court took cognizance against Sub-Inspector Rupavath Pavan for offences under Sections 182, 211 and 506 IPC, while cognizance was taken against Inspector Namindla Shankar for offences under Sections 166A(b), 211, 220, 340 read with 342 and 506 IPC.
Challenging the proceedings, the two police officers approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking quashing of the criminal cases. They argued that the FIR and subsequent police actions were undertaken in discharge of official duties and therefore prosecution could not continue without prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC.
The officers also contended that the allegations did not disclose ingredients of the offences alleged and that continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.
Vijay Gopal argued that illegal detention and coercive conduct could not be treated as acts done in discharge of official duty.
After examining the material on record, the High Court observed that allegations relating to illegal detention prior to registration of the FIR, coercion in obtaining signatures on Section 41-A notices and abuse of police authority, if accepted as true, prima facie disclosed cognizable offences requiring trial.
The Court held that protection under Section 197 CrPC is available only when the acts complained of bear reasonable nexus with official duties. Referring to the Supreme Court judgments 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 authority would fall outside such protection.
The High Court further noted that the allegations regarding non-compliance with Section 41-A CrPC guidelines and failure to preserve CCTV footage raised serious concerns relating to procedural safeguards and police accountability.
Holding that the issues involved disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence during trial, the Court dismissed quash petitions filed by the Police officers and directed the magistrate court to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
