Lady Constable Shivani Joshi and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another & Connected Matter, 2026

An FIR was initially registered at Police Station Baberu, District Banda, under Sections 147, 323, 504 and 506 IPC.

During investigation, Sub-Inspector Dileep Kumar Mishra issued notices under Section 41A CrPC to secure the cooperation of the accused persons in the investigation.

Four police constables were sent to Village Padari to serve the notices.

According to the prosecution, the accused persons and their family members allegedly abused and assaulted the police constables.

The prosecution further alleged that the notices were torn or snatched, brickbats were thrown, and the mobile phone of Constable Sukhbir Singh was allegedly snatched.

Following this incident, a police force was dispatched to the village.

Four women were arrested during the night of 13 May 2022.

Four men, including the informant, were arrested on the following day.

The informant subsequently alleged that police personnel subjected him and others to illegal assault, custodial violence, molestation, looting and false implication.

Pursuant to an application under Section 156(3) CrPC, an FIR was registered against nine named police personnel and several unknown police personnel.

The present applicants included police personnel, including a lady constable.

The applicants sought discharge from the criminal proceedings and relied upon Section 197 CrPC, arguing that the alleged acts were committed while they were performing their official duties.

The Trial Court rejected their discharge applications by order dated 27 September 2024.

The police personnel thereafter approached the Allahabad High Court challenging the Trial Court's refusal to discharge them.

The High Court examined the medical records of the informant and other injured persons.

The medical reports recorded multiple injuries, including contusions and swelling on the buttocks, thighs, legs, chest and other parts of the body.

The prosecution alleged that the injured persons were repeatedly beaten while in police custody after their hands and feet had been tied with a rope and they had been made to lie face down.

The police attempted to explain the injuries through a General Diary entry dated 14 May 2022, which stated that the informant suffered a bleeding injury after falling during arrest and that three others sustained blunt-force injuries.

The High Court found this explanation to be highly implausible and described it as “absolutely ridiculous.”

The Trial Court had directed a Medical Board examination of all eight injured persons, through which the injuries were brought to light.

The charge-sheet was ultimately filed under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 452, 354 and 395 IPC, and the Trial Court took cognizance of the offences.

The police personnel argued before the High Court that prosecution could not proceed without prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC.

They had also previously challenged the cognizance and summoning order before the High Court but withdrew that proceeding on 8 February 2024, after obtaining liberty to appear before the competent court and seek appropriate bail.

Despite obtaining such liberty, they did not surrender before the Trial Court or obtain bail before filing the discharge applications.

The High Court therefore considered not only the Section 197 argument but also the maintainability of the discharge applications in the circumstances.

The Allahabad High Court dismissed both criminal applications filed by the police personnel.

The Court upheld the Trial Court's order dated 27 September 2024, which had rejected their discharge applications.

The Court held that the alleged conduct of repeatedly beating persons in police custody, particularly after tying their hands and feet and making them lie face down, could not be treated as part of police duty.

The Court categorically observed that such conduct could only be described as a “heinous crime” and could not be characterized as merely an instance where police officers had slightly exceeded their permissible limits during investigation.

The Court therefore rejected the applicants' attempt to claim protection under Section 197 CrPC.

The Court relied upon the medical evidence showing multiple injuries on different parts of the bodies of the informant and other injured persons.

The High Court found the explanation in the General Diary that the injuries resulted from the persons falling during arrest to be “absolutely ridiculous.”

The Court noted that the Medical Board examination ordered by the Trial Court had brought the injuries to light.

It observed that without such medical examination, the allegedly false version recorded by the police might have remained on the record and the alleged offences against the injured persons might not have been exposed.

The Court gave particular significance to the fact that Section 354 IPC was included in the charge-sheet.

Referring to the Explanation to Section 197(1) CrPC, the Court held that no sanction is required where a public servant is accused of an offence under Section 354 IPC.

The Court therefore rejected the argument that prosecution of the applicants necessarily required prior governmental sanction.

The Court also considered the procedural history of the applicants, who had earlier challenged the cognizance and summoning order but withdrew that challenge with liberty to approach the competent court.

Despite that liberty, they had neither surrendered before the Trial Court nor obtained bail before filing their discharge applications.

The High Court consequently held that the discharge applications seeking protection under Section 197 CrPC were not maintainable in the circumstances.

Ultimately, the Court found the applications to be devoid of merits and dismissed them.

Section 197 is not blanket immunity: The judgment reinforces an important limitation on Section 197 CrPC. The provision protects legitimate acts connected with official functions; it does not provide immunity for every act committed by a public servant while on duty.

Connection with official duty must be genuine: The relevant question is not simply whether the accused was a police officer or whether the incident occurred during an investigation. There must be a reasonable nexus between the alleged act and the lawful discharge of official duty.

Custodial torture falls outside official functions: Repeatedly beating persons whose hands and feet were allegedly tied and who were lying face down cannot reasonably be characterized as an investigative technique or legitimate exercise of police authority. The Court therefore drew a clear line between lawful investigation and criminal violence.

Section 354 creates an independent statutory exception: The Court's reliance on the Explanation to Section 197(1) is particularly significant. Even where a public servant invokes Section 197, the statutory framework itself excludes the sanction requirement for an accusation under Section 354 IPC.

Medical evidence was crucial: The multiple injuries documented on several persons provided objective material supporting the prosecution's allegations. At the discharge stage, the Court was not required to conduct a full trial but could consider whether the prosecution material disclosed sufficient grounds for the proceedings to continue.

Police records are not automatically conclusive: The General Diary entry attempted to attribute the injuries to falls during arrest. The High Court did not accept that explanation at face value and compared it with the medical evidence and surrounding circumstances.

Importance of independent medical examination: The Court's observation concerning the Medical Board is significant because it demonstrates the evidentiary importance of an independent medical assessment in cases alleging custodial violence.

Protection of personal liberty: The judgment reflects the principle that police powers are subject to legal limits. Custody does not extinguish an individual's protection against assault, torture or degrading treatment.

Discharge stage: The Court did not conduct a final trial or pronounce the applicants guilty. Its conclusion was limited to whether the prosecution should be terminated at the discharge stage. Finding that the allegations and supporting material were sufficient to continue the proceedings, it refused discharge.

Procedural conduct of the applicants: The Court also considered the applicants' failure to surrender or obtain bail after withdrawing their earlier challenge to the cognizance and summoning order. This procedural history weakened their attempt to use the discharge proceeding as a means of obtaining protection under Section 197.

Broader legal impact: The judgment sends a strong message that official status cannot convert criminal violence into official duty. Police personnel remain accountable for acts that have no legitimate connection with their statutory functions.

Significance for custodial violence cases: The decision is particularly relevant to cases involving allegations of police torture, illegal detention, assault and molestation. It strengthens the distinction between legitimate coercive powers of investigation and conduct that constitutes an independent criminal offence.

Important limitation: The High Court's decision on the discharge applications should not be understood as a final determination of guilt. The allegations remain subject to the ordinary criminal trial process and proof according to law.