Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — S. 197 — Sanction for prosecution — Police officers — Acts done in discharge of official duty — Cognizance without sanction — Validity. Where the alleged acts of custodial excesses are stated to have occurred during investigation of a registered crime, the acts complained of bear a reasonable nexus with the discharge of official duty, and prior sanction under Section 197(1)(b) Cr.P.C. is mandatory. Cognizance taken without such sanction is vitiated in law. (Paras 14, 18, 20)

advocatemmmohan

AP HIGH COURT AMARAVATHI

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — S. 197 — Sanction for prosecution — Police officers — Acts done in discharge of official duty — Cognizance without sanction — Validity.
Where the alleged acts of custodial excesses are stated to have occurred during investigation of a registered crime, the acts complained of bear a reasonable nexus with the discharge of official duty, and prior sanction under Section 197(1)(b) Cr.P.C. is mandatory. Cognizance taken without such sanction is vitiated in law.
(Paras 14, 18, 20)

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Ss. 3(1)(x), 3(2) — “Public view” — Police station premises — Scope.
Alleged caste-based abuse occurring inside a police station, which is not freely accessible to the general public and lacks public glare, does not satisfy the essential ingredient of “place within public view” required for offences under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2) of the Act.
(Paras 17, 19)

SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — Investigation procedure — Rule 7 of 1995 Rules — Role of Magistrate.
When the statute mandates investigation by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, the learned Magistrate cannot assume the role of an investigating authority and take cognizance solely on the basis of sworn statements in a private complaint.
(Paras 15, 16, 19)

Criminal Procedure — Private complaint — Cognizance — Limits of Magistrate’s power.
Cognizance taken by the Magistrate by overlooking the statutorily prescribed investigative mechanism under the SC & ST (POA) Act amounts to a jurisdictional error.
(Paras 16, 19)

Inherent powers — Quashment — Abuse of process.
Proceedings initiated without statutory sanction, ignoring mandatory procedural safeguards, and lacking essential ingredients of the alleged offences are liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
(Paras 18, 20)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS (Paragraph-wise)

1. Nature of Proceedings
   The Criminal Petition was filed seeking quashment of PRC No.14 of 2019, arising out of a private complaint, insofar as A-1 and A-2 (police officers) are concerned. (Para 1)

2. Status of Petitioners
   Petitioner No.1 is a Sub-Inspector of Police and Petitioner No.2 is an Inspector of Police, both serving in the State Police Department. (Para 2)

3. Allegations in Complaint
   It was alleged that during investigation of Crime No.98 of 2015, the petitioners subjected the complainant to custodial torture, illegal confinement, and caste-based abuse inside the police station. (Paras 3, 5)

4. Failure to Register FIR
   As the police authorities did not register the complaint against their own personnel, the complainant filed a private complaint, and the Magistrate took cognizance after recording sworn statements. (Para 4)

5. Cognizance Taken
   The learned Magistrate took cognizance for offences under Sections 3(1)(ii)(x), 3(2) of the SC & ST Act and Sections 323, 452, 307, 506 read with 34 IPC. (Para 5)

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW

1. Requirement of Sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
   The Court held that investigation of a registered crime is a statutory duty of police officers. Allegations of excesses during such investigation are acts connected with official functions, attracting the protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C. (Paras 14, 18)

2. Procedural Mandate under SC & ST (POA) Act
   Rule 7 of the 1995 Rules mandates investigation by a DSP-rank officer, followed by a structured supervisory process. The Magistrate cannot bypass this mechanism. (Paras 15, 16)

3. Meaning of “Public View”
   Relying on binding precedent, the Court reiterated that police station premises do not constitute a place within public view, as access is restricted and not open to the general public. (Paras 17, 19)

4. Jurisdictional Error by Magistrate
   By taking cognizance without sanction and by ignoring mandatory statutory procedure, the Magistrate assumed the role of an investigating officer, which is impermissible. (Paras 16, 19)

5. Exercise of Inherent Powers
   Given the cumulative procedural violations and absence of essential ingredients, continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of Court. (Paras 18, 20)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Where police officers are alleged to have committed acts during investigation of a registered crime, prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is mandatory; cognizance taken without such sanction is invalid, and allegations of caste-based abuse said to have occurred inside a police station do not satisfy the statutory requirement of “public view” under the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act—rendering the proceedings liable to be quashed