Bombay High Court rules custodial torture claims require sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C

It matters to citizens as it addresses the legal protection (sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.) afforded to public servants for acts committed while discharging official duties.

Who it concerns: The petitioners are Sanjay Bapuso Dalvi (Police Inspector), Mahesh Suresh Kore, and Namdev Dadu Chougule (Police Constables). The respondents are the State of Maharashtra and Yasin B. Mankapure (the complainant). The judgment concerns the jurisdiction of the High Court to review orders from the Additional Sessions Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class in Ichalkaranji.

What was decided

• The petitioners challenged orders dated 8th April 2022 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ichalkaranji, which dismissed their Criminal Revision Applications.
• The underlying case involves allegations that on 26th November 2008, the petitioners (police officers) assaulted the complainant at Shivaji Nagar Police Station to extract a confession for a murder.
• The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ichalkaranji, issued process against the petitioners for offences under Sections 326, 325, 324, 342, 348, 504, and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
• The Magistrate held that no sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. was required because the acts were not part of the duty to threaten or coerce, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Choudhari Parveen Sultana vs. State of West Bengal.
• The petitioners argued that the acts were committed in discharge of official duty (or in excess thereof) and thus required prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. to proceed.
• The High Court reserved the judgment on 22nd June 2026 and pronounced it on 9th July 2026.

Also in the document

• The complainant alleged that he was beaten with a belt and slapped by the police officers from 10:00 p.m. until morning on 26th November 2008.
• A doctor examined the complainant on 27th November 2008 and opined that his condition was serious, suggesting hospitalization.
• The petitioners relied on several Supreme Court and High Court precedents, including Matajog Dobey vs. H. C. Bhari and State of Orissa vs. Ganesh Chandra Jew, to argue that even acts in excess of duty require sanction if reasonably connected to official functions.
• The text provided is truncated and does not contain the final decision or order of the High Court.