Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil Kumar Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25607
1 WP-4643-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 1 st OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 4643 of 2015
SUNIL KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Shankar Raizada - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Yaduvendra Dwivedi - PL for respondent/State.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 4639 of 2015
HEMANT RAKESH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Shankar Raizada - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Yaduvendra Dwivedi- PL for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 4640 of 2015
NEERAJ KUKREJA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Shankar Raizada - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Yaduvendra Dwivedi - PL for respondent/State.
ORDER
As the issue involved in these petitions is common and identical, they
are heard and decided together.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PARMESHWAR
GOPE
Signing time: 01-04-2026
17:56:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25607
2 WP-4643-2015
2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been preferred by the petitioner calling in question the legality and propriety
of the communication dated 23.03.2015 issued by the Government Railway
Police, Katni whereby the petitioners were directed to appear before the said
police station in connection with Crime No. 44/2012 registered for offences
under Sections 294, 323, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code along with the
relevant provisions of the Railways Act, and further seeking quashment of
the proceedings arising therefrom.
3. As per the averments of the petitions, the petitioners are the Chief
Vigilance Inspector, Vigilance Inspectors, and Assistant Vigilance Officer of
the Vigilance Branch of the West Central Railway, Jabalpur. While
conducting an inspection, they also inspected respondent No. 8/Mr. Pyar
Singh Meena. As he belongs to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe
category, he allegedly took shelter under the said status and filed a complaint
dated 29.12.2011 against the petitioners alleging that on 29.12.2011, while
he was on duty in Coach Nos. C-1 and D-1 of Train No. 11452 Rewa-
Jabalpur Intercity at Katni Railway Station, a passenger who introduced
himself as Shukla requested a seat. When he refused a seat due to non-
availability, the said person allegedly started abusing him, claiming to be a
Vigilance Officer. Thereafter, he allegedly occupied the complainant’s seat
and began making phone calls. When the train reached Jabalpur Railway
Station, the complainant got down and found 4-5 RPF personnel along with
Sub-Inspector Shishir Kumar and Vigilance Inspectors Kukreja and
Srivastava present there. It was further alleged that the complainant was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PARMESHWAR
GOPE
Signing time: 01-04-2026
17:56:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25607
3 WP-4643-2015
taken to the RPF station by holding his hand, abused, subjected to caste-
based slurs, stripped, searched, and mentally and physically harassed.
Thereafter, the Police Station GRP, Jabalpur summoned all the vigilance
officers named above and the RPF staffs, who were present during the
vigilance check on 29.12.2011. Their statements were recorded and the
matter was investigated on the basis of the complaint dated 29.12.2011. The
Station House Officer, GRP Jabalpur, after conducting a thorough
investigation, found that no criminal case was made out against the
petitioners and submitted his report dated 11.01.2012. Thereafter, respondent
No. 8/complainant also filed a complaint against the petitioners through the
All India Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Railway Employees
Association. Pursuant thereto, and allegedly at the behest of respondent No.
4- Shri Gaji Ram Meena, who was then the Inspector General of Police,
Range Rewa, and who also belongs to the same caste and category as
respondent No. 8/complainant, Crime No. 44/12 was registered at GRP
Katni, District Katni. This was done despite the fact that the Railway Police
authorities at Jabalpur had already conducted an investigation and found that
no illegality or offence had been committed by the petitioners. Consequently,
the petitioners filed Writ Petitions No. 6159 and 6160 of 2012, which were
disposed of vide common order dated 06.08.2012 directing the Director
General of Police, Bhopal to examine the matter, deal with it, and take
necessary steps in accordance with law without being influenced by any
extraneous pressures or considerations.
4. In compliance with the said order, an enquiry was conducted by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PARMESHWAR
GOPE
Signing time: 01-04-2026
17:56:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25607
4 WP-4643-2015
the Superintendent of Police (Rail). Vide letter dated 24.04.2014 addressed
to Special Director General (Rail), Bhopal, it was clearly mentioned that only
Vigilance Officer Subhash Yadav was found guilty. No other vigilance
officers were found to have abused or assaulted Mr. Pyar Singh Meena, who
had misused his reputation and position. No evidence was found to warrant
prosecution against the other vigilance officers or the RPF
personnels. However, abruptly, vide letter dated 23.03.2015 issued by the
SHO, GRP Katni, District Katni, the petitioners were directed to appear
before him for taking further steps in connection with Crime No. 44/12
registered at the said police station, purportedly in compliance with the
orders passed in the writ petitions and directions of superior officers. Hence,
the present petitions have been filed by the petitioners.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
communication dated 23.03.2015 is nothing but, an attempt to override the
authority of this Court, which had clearly directed that an impartial enquiry
be conducted without being influenced by any external pressure. Pursuant to
the said direction, the Superintendent of Police (Rail) conducted an enquiry
and found no material against the petitioners. Except for Shri Subhash
Yadav, no one else was found guilty. Learned counsel further submits that it
is incomprehensible that when this Court directed respondent No. 2, the
Director General of Police to conduct an enquiry into the matter, in
compliance thereof, an enquiry was conducted in which the petitioners were
exonerated from the allegations levelled against them, then how a lower-rank
officer could arrive at a conclusion that the petitioners are guilty. It is also
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PARMESHWAR
GOPE
Signing time: 01-04-2026
17:56:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25607
5 WP-4643-2015
submitted that investigating agency-GRP, Katni without jurisdiction acted at
the behest of complainant/Mr. Pryar Singh Meena and Mr. Gaji Ram Meena,
I.G. with ulterior motive to harass and humiliate the petitioners by abusing
the process of law. The said action amounts to a clear abuse of the process of
law and a colourable exercise of power by the GRP authorities. Hence, it is
prayed that the impugned letter dated 23.03.2015 be quashed.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 5
filed reply on their behalf denying the averments made in the petitions and
submitted that pursuant to the order passed in W.P. Nos. 6159 and 6160 of
2012, an enquiry was conducted by the S.P. (Rail), Jabalpur, who submitted
a report dated 24.04.2014 to the Director General of Police (Rail). Upon
perusal of the said report, the Director General of Police (Rail) found that the
report was based on previously recorded statements of various persons.
Accordingly, vide letter dated 21.05.2014, directions were issued to record
the statements of witnesses afresh and to submit a fresh enquiry report.
7. It is further submitted that in compliance with the said directions,
S.P. (Rail), Jabalpur conducted a fresh enquiry, recorded statements of
witnesses, and submitted a detailed report dated 21.11.2014. After examining
the said report, the Director General of Police (Rail), by letter dated
25.11.2014, directed the S.P. (Rail), Jabalpur to specify the names of the
persons against whom prima facie case was found established. Consequently,
the S.P. (Rail), Jabalpur submitted a report dated 29.11.2014 naming nine
persons, including the petitioners, against whom prima facie case was made
out. Thereafter, vide order dated 15.12.2014, the Director General of Police
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PARMESHWAR
GOPE
Signing time: 01-04-2026
17:56:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25607
6 WP-4643-2015
(Rail) directed the S.P. (Rail), Jabalpur to complete the formalities for filing
the charge-sheet before the competent Court in accordance with law.
8. It is also submitted that Police Headquarters (Crime Investigation
Department), Bhopal, vide letter dated 15.01.2015 reiterated that coercive
steps against the persons involved in the crime would be taken only after a
final decision regarding their involvement by the Director General of Police
(Rail). Pursuant to the said directions, the S.P. (Rail), Jabalpur, vide by letter
dated 11.02.2015 directed the Dy. S.P. (Rail), Katni to take necessary action,
and accordingly the OIC, GRP Police Station, Katni was directed on
12.02.2015 to complete the formalities for filing the charge sheet against the
accused persons.
9. It is further submitted that the earlier report of Superintendent of
Police (Rail) dated 24.04.2014 stood superseded by the order dated
21.05.2014 issued by the Director General of Police (Rail), as the same was
not prepared in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The subsequent
report dated 21.11.2014 was based on statements of witnesses recorded
during the fresh enquiry, in which the petitioners were found involved in the
offence. Accordingly, summons were issued to the petitioners by the OIC,
GRP Police Station, Katni vide communication dated 23.03.2015. However,
instead of cooperating with the investigation, the petitioners filed the present
petitions by suppressing the material facts and placing reliance on the earlier
report dated 24.04.2014, which had already been superseded. It is therefore
contended that the summons issued by the OIC, GRP Police Station, Katni
were based on the subsequent enquiry report and the contention of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PARMESHWAR
GOPE
Signing time: 01-04-2026
17:56:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25607
7 WP-4643-2015
petitioners that the said authority was not competent to act contrary to the
earlier report is misconceived. On the aforesaid grounds, the learned counsel
for respondents have prayed for dismissal of petitions.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record, the principal question which arises for consideration in the present
case is whether the acts alleged against the petitioners can be said to have
been committed while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official
duty so as to attract the protection provided under Section 197 CrPC, and the
FIR has been lodged with mala fide intention.
11. The incident in question is stated to have arisen during the course
of a vigilance inspection carried out by the petitioners in Train No.11452 on
29.12.2011, wherein the functioning of respondent No.8, a Ticket Examiner,
was subjected to scrutiny. The record indicates that the altercation, which
subsequently gave rise to the complaint, occurred in the backdrop of such
official inspection.
12. A significant aspect which merits consideration is the manner in
which the criminal law was set into motion. The alleged incident having
taken place at Katni Railway Station, the jurisdiction to entertain and act
upon the complaint squarely vested with the railway police authorities
having territorial jurisdiction over Katni or Jabalpur. However, the complaint
was entertained by the then Inspector General of Police, Rewa, who
undisputedly did not exercise territorial jurisdiction over the place of
occurrence. Notwithstanding this limitation, the said authority proceeded to
take cognizance of the complaint on the very same day and directed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PARMESHWAR
GOPE
Signing time: 01-04-2026
17:56:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25607
8 WP-4643-2015
registration of the FIR. This Court is unable to accept such action as a
routine administrative forwarding of a complaint. On the contrary, the
sequence of events reveals a clear departure from settled jurisdictional
discipline and reflects an unwarranted assumption of authority.
13. It has specifically been brought to the notice of this Court that
respondent No.4, the then Inspector General of Police, Rewa, and respondent
No.8, the complainant, belong to the same caste. The unusual promptitude
with which the complaint was acted upon, despite the apparent lack of
jurisdiction, coupled with this undisputed social proximity, gives rise to a
reasonable apprehension that the process was influenced by extraneous
considerations. The material on record supports the contention of the
petitioners that the complainant, taking shelter of his caste status, for
initiating criminal proceedings, went to Rewa and submitted a written report
in spite of that, he was fully aware that Rewa was beyond territorial
jurisdiction and FIR should be lodged at Katni GRP.
14. This Court also finds considerable substance in the fact that the
railway police authorities at Jabalpur, upon initial examination, did not find
any offence made out against the petitioners. However, a case came to be
registered subsequently at Katni, not on the basis of any fresh incriminating
material, but in consequence of the intervention initiated at the level of the
Inspector General of Police, Rewa. Such a course of action raises serious
doubts.
15. Further, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.
No.6159/2012, a detailed inquiry was conducted by Superintendent of Police
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PARMESHWAR
GOPE
Signing time: 01-04-2026
17:56:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25607
9 WP-4643-2015
(Rail), Jabalpur, culminating in a report dated 24.04.2014. The said inquiry
report categorically concludes that the present petitioners were not involved
in the alleged incident and that culpability, if any, was attributable only to
one vigilance officer, namely Shubash Yadav. This finding, arrived at after a
comprehensive fact-finding exercise by a competent authority, significantly
undermines the very basis of the allegations levelled against the petitioners
and renders the continuation of proceedings by issuing a notice against them,
is wholly unjustified.
16. From the material placed before this Court, it is not in dispute that
the petitioners were functioning as Vigilance Inspectors/Assistant Vigilance
Officer in the Railway administration and that the incident which gave rise to
this complaint occurred during the course of vigilance inspection conducted
in the train while examining the conduct of the Ticket Examiner respondent
No.8. Now, the point for consideration of this court is that, the shelter of 197
CrPC is applicable to the petitioner.
17. In Amal Kumar Jha vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another, (2016) 6
SCC 734, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has authoritatively held that even if the
act is in excess of duty, so long as there exists a reasonable connection with
official duty, the protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C cannot be denied.
Similarly, in Jagdish Singh Meena and another vs. Sagar Mogia and another,
2020 SCC OnLine MP 27, wherein this Court reiterated that acts of police
officials performed during duty, even involving use of force, would attract
the protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C if reasonably connected with official
duty.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PARMESHWAR
GOPE
Signing time: 01-04-2026
17:56:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25607
10 WP-4643-2015
18. Additionally, in K. Kalimuthu vs. State, (2005) 4 SCC 512,
Manorama Tiwari vs. Surendra Nath Rai, (2016) 1 SCC 594, and State of
M.P. vs. Sheetla Sahai, (2009) 8 SCC 617 , wherein the Supreme Court has
consistently held that the test is whether the act has reasonable nexus with
official duty and that even acts done in purported discharge of duty fall
within the ambit of Section 197 Cr.P.C. In Matajog Dobey vs. H.C. Bhari,
(1955) 2 SCC 388 and State of Orissa vs. Ganesh Chandra Jew (2004) 8 SCC
4 0 to contend that the expression “official duty” must receive a broad
interpretation and that the act complained of need not be strictly within the
duty, but must be reasonably connected with it. Further, in State through CBI
vs. B.L. Verma, (1997) 10 SCC 772, wherein it has been held that sanction
under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is mandatory and goes to the root of jurisdiction,
and in absence thereof, cognizance is vitiated.
19. In Anjani Kumar vs. State of Bihar 2008 CrLJ 2558 , the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has emphasized that the applicability of Section 197 Cr.P.C
must be determined with reference to the nature of the act and its nexus with
official duty, and that even at a subsequent stage, if such nexus is established,
the proceedings cannot continue without sanction. The principles laid down
in Matajog Dobey, and Sheetla Sahai (supra) consistently reiterate that there
must be a reasonable connection between the act and official duty and that
provision cannot be construed narrowly, so as to defeat its object. It has
repeatedly been held that even acts done in excess of duty, would fall within
the protective ambit, if they are reasonably connected with official functions.
20. In Amal Kumar Jha and Ganesh Chandra Jew (supra) , it has further
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PARMESHWAR
GOPE
Signing time: 01-04-2026
17:56:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25607
11 WP-4643-2015
been clarified that the test is whether omission to perform the act would have
exposed the public servant to a charge of dereliction of duty. If the answer is
in the affirmative, the act must be held to be connected with official duty.
Similarly, in B.L. Verma (supra) it has categorically been held that the
requirement of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C is mandatory and goes to
the root of jurisdiction, and cognizance taken without such sanction is
unsustainable in law.
21. In the considered opinion of this Court the legal position regarding
the applicability of Section 197 of the CrPC is well settled. The expression
“official duty” appearing in the said provision has consistently been
interpreted in a broad and pragmatic manner by the Supreme Court. The
settled principle emerging from the decisions of the Supreme Court is that if
the act complained of, is reasonably connected with the discharge of official
duty, the protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C would be attracted. The act
complained of need not be strictly within the limits of official duty and even
acts done in excess of duty or in purported discharge of official duty, would
fall within the protective ambit of the provision, so long as there exists a
reasonable nexus between the act and the official duty performed.
22. In this regard it has repeatedly been emphasized by the Supreme
Court that the true test is whether omission to perform the act complained of,
would have exposed the public servant to a charge of dereliction of duty. If
the answer to that question is in affirmative, the act must necessarily be
regarded as having been performed in the course of official duty. The
Supreme Court has also consistently held that sanction under Section 197
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PARMESHWAR
GOPE
Signing time: 01-04-2026
17:56:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25607
12 WP-4643-2015
Cr.P.C is not a mere procedural requirement but, a condition precedent which
goes to the root of jurisdiction and that in absence of such sanction, the
prosecution of a public servant for acts connected with official duty cannot
be sustained.
23. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case,
this Court is of the view that the alleged acts attributed to the petitioners
arose during the course of vigilance inspection undertaken by them, in their
official capacity as a Vigilance Inspectors/Additional Vigilance Inspector of
the Railways. Even if, the allegations contained in the complaint are taken at
their face value, the same cannot be separated from the official context, in
which the incident is alleged to have occurred. The acts complained of,
therefore bear a clear and reasonable nexus with the discharge of official
duties by the petitioners.
24. In such circumstances the protection available under Section 197
of the Cr.P.C becomes applicable and sanction from the competent authority
becomes a mandatory prerequisite before initiating criminal prosecution
against the petitioners.
25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is satisfied that the
proceedings initiated against the petitioners pursuant to Crime No.44/2012
registered at Government Railway Police Station Katni and the
communication dated 23.03.2015 directing the petitioners to appear before
the police station cannot be sustained in law.
26. Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and are
accordingly allowed. The proceedings arising out of Crime No.44/2012
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PARMESHWAR
GOPE
Signing time: 01-04-2026
17:56:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25607
13 WP-4643-2015
registered at Government Railway Police Station Katni against the
petitioners only, including the communication dated 23.03.2015 directing the
petitioners to appear before the police station, are hereby quashed.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
PG
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PARMESHWAR
GOPE
Signing time: 01-04-2026
17:56:18