In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has firmly stated that acts of violence, commonly referred to as "marpeet," inside a police station can never be considered part of official duty. The court, led by Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta, refused to quash criminal proceedings against a woman police sub-inspector and other officials accused of custodial torture and assault.
Court's Stern Stand on Custodial Violence
Justice Gupta emphasized that acts of assault, torture, illegal detention, and custodial violence are wholly illegal. The bench cited several Supreme Court judgments to underline that abuse of power and violence in custody are unconstitutional and fall completely outside the domain of lawful police duty. The court dismissed the petition filed by the accused officer, Sub-Inspector Mamta Gurjar, seeking protection from prosecution.
The heart of the ruling lies in the interpretation of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This section requires prior government sanction to prosecute public servants for acts allegedly done in the discharge of official duties. The High Court clarified that this protection is not absolute or automatic.
The Disturbing Incident in Sheopur
The case stems from a complaint filed by one Pooja Kushwah. She alleged that on October 12, 2019, her brother Dhirendra was stopped near Partwada village in Sheopur district. According to the complaint, SI Mamta Gurjar slapped Dhirendra and hit him with a stick. He was then taken to the Bargawan police station.
At the police station, the alleged torture escalated. Dhirendra was reportedly stripped, beaten again, and locked up. The police allegedly threatened to "encounter" him. When Pooja went to the police station to question the assault on her brother, she too faced brutality. The complaint states she was slapped multiple times, hit with sticks on various parts of her body, and her dupatta was pulled off and thrown away. Another accused allegedly bit her shoulder and mouth with "ill intention."
Both siblings sustained injuries and underwent medical examination. Despite complaints to senior officers, no action was taken, forcing the complainant to approach the trial court.
Legal Journey and Court's Final Observations
The trial court took cognizance of the case on February 6, 2024, under sections 294 (obscene acts), 342 (wrongful confinement), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. The accused officers filed an application seeking protection under Section 197 CrPC (now mirrored in Section 218 of the BNSS 2023), arguing that the alleged acts were performed during official duty. This application was dismissed by the trial court on February 10, and a subsequent revision petition was dismissed by the sessions judge on May 27, 2024.
Advocate Arun Katare, representing Gurjar, argued in the High Court that the incident occurred during the discharge of official duties and thus prosecution without sanction was invalid. Advocate Manvardhan Singh Tomar, appearing for the complainant, opposed this.
The High Court delivered a clear verdict. It stated that for the protection of Section 197 CrPC to apply, there must be a "reasonable connection" between the act and the official duty. The bench held that such a nexus is absent in cases of custodial torture, third-degree treatment, abuse, or filing false cases.
"The act of the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, does not fall under the discharge of official duties," Justice Gupta observed. The court notably pointed out that neither the complainant nor her brother were accused in any prior case or required for interrogation at the time of the incident, indicating the assault was not a demand of the situation.
Finding no illegality in the lower courts' orders, the High Court dismissed the petition. It directed the trial court to proceed with the case in accordance with the law, without being influenced by the observations in this order. This ruling reinforces the judiciary's role in checking police excesses and affirming that the cloak of official duty cannot protect acts of brutality.
