Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Rajeshwar Singh vs State Through Additional Pp on 8 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRMC No.537/2015
Reserved on: 30.03.2026
Pronounced on: 08.04.2026
Uploaded on:-08.04.2026.
Whether the operative part or
full judgment is pronounced: Yes
Rajeshwar Singh
S/O Sh. Dhian Singh
R/O 313, Sec. 1, Channi Himmat
Jammu. .....Petitioner
Through :- Mr. Akash Gupta, Adv.
V/S
1. State through Additional PP
2nd Additional Session Judge,
Jammu.
2. Satish Kumar S/O Hans Raj
R/O Krishna Nagar Mujralian,
Miran Sahib, Jammu.
3. Kulbir Singh Bhau, SHO,
Police Station, Miran Sahib,
C/O Dy. Inspector General of Police, Range
Jammu.
4. Harjeet Singh, SHO
Police Station Miran Sahib, Jammu
5. Mohd. Rafique Manhas, SHO
Police Station Ranbir Singh Pura,
Jammu. .....Respondent(s)
Through :- None for R-1 & 2.
Mr. G S Thakur, Adv. for R-3 to 5.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court under
Sections 561-A of J&K CrPC (akin to Section 482 CrPC and 528 BNSS) seeks
quashing of order dated 11.05.2015 passed by learned 2 nd Additional Sessions
Judge Jammu (hereinafter call ‘trial court’), in Complaint No.92-A/complaint
CRMC No. 537/2015 Page 1 of 12
tilted ‘Satish Kumar V/S Kulbir Singh & Ors’, whereby the court has held that
the petitioner was not entitled to protection under Section 197 CrPC and also
seeks the quashing of the complaint.
2. The petitioner pleads that in the month of May 2005, he was posted as
SDPO, R S Pura and on 09.05.2005, one Indu Rani W/O Kulwant Singh R/O
Krishna Nagar Miran Sahib was found having died under mysterious
circumstances in her bedroom, as reported by her brother-in-law Rameshwar
Singh Manhas and that on this report, inquest proceedings under Section 174
CrPC were initiated at P/S Miran Sahib; that during inquiry, respondent No.2-
Satish Kumar (hereinafter ‘complainant’) was called in police station on
10.05.2005 for interrogating him regarding the cause of death and was let free
after two hours; that the police after making proper inquiry registered a case
vide FIR No. 17/2005 under Sections 302 RPC & 4/25 Arms Act at P/S Miran
Sahib against Kulwant Singh Manhas and Rameshwar Singh Manhas, sons of
Vishwanath Manhas R/O Krishna Nagar Murjalian on 16.07.2005 which
concluded into a chargesheet which was produced in the court of law and both
the accused were convicted by the trial court, where conviction was upheld by
the High Court.
3. The petitioner has alleged that in order to harass him and other police
officials connected with the investigation of the case and supervising the same, a
petition titled ‘Lajwanti Manhas V/S State & Ors,’ (HCP No.15/2005) was filed
before the High Court and the High Court had appointed Deputy Registrar
(Judicial) as a Warrant Officer to visit P/S Miran Sahib to find out actual
position whether the person named in the petition including the complainant are
under custody of police at P/S Miran Sahib and if so, they be released forthwith
and in case someone is not there, the warrant officer was permitted to make
enquiry about the whereabouts of the persons and report the matter; that the
CRMC No. 537/2015 Page 2 of 12
warrant officer visited P/S Miran Sahib and in his report submitted that Kulwant
Singh Manhas and Vishwanath Manhas were not in custody but they were in
two different rooms and were set free and that the complainant was not found in
police custody nor any information was given about his whereabouts and
ultimately, the petition was withdrawn by petitioner – Lajwanti; that when
complainant and his family could not succeed in pressurizing the police in
investigation represented to the Human Rights Commission who after
considering the reply of the petitioners dropped the proceedings; that the role of
the petitioner as Incharge SDPO was of a supervisory nature as the investigation
was conducted by concerned SHO.
4. The petitioner, further, pleads that the complainant had filed a
criminal complaint all those issues raised earlier by the complainant and his
family members before the IGP and State Human Rights Commission who had
exonerated the petitioner and respondent nos. 3 to 5; that the trial court had lost
sight of the fact and the principles laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court
wherein it has been held that protection given under section 197 CrPC is
available when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably
connected to the discharge of his official duty and is not merely a cloak; and that
if in doing his official duty, the official had acted in excess of his duty and there
is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of the official
duty, the excess will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the public servant of
the protection; that in the present case, the petitioner was alleged to have done
everything in discharge of his public duties and is entitled to protection under
Section 197 CrPC for being prosecuted only after sanction by the competent
authority.
5. The respondent No.2/ complainant, in his reply, submits that petitioner
cannot seek immunity from criminal proceedings without sanction under Section
CRMC No. 537/2015 Page 3 of 12
197 CrPC; that the complainant was called to the police station and subjected to
third-degree torture, kept in custody at various police stations from 10.05.2005
to 01.06.2005 and got tortured at the instance of the petitioner herein, who was
SDPO R S Pura and other police officers who have been named in the
complaint; that the accused had not only kept him in illegal custody and tortured
him but also filed false reports in his bail applications to the courts stating that
he was not in their custody; that the petitioner had been directed to pay
Rs.20,000/- for keeping Vishwanath Manhas illegally in the custody by the
Human Rights Commission vide order dated 20.05.2008 and that actions of the
petitioner did not fall within the line of duty as alleged by the complainant in his
complaint; that the accused police officers had misled the courts about the
whereabouts of the complainant and had the audacity to file incorrect status
reports in his bail application, and the gravity of the matter could be understood
from the fact that the High Court had to intervene and appoint a warrant officer
to visit the police station to report with regard the custody of the complainant
and finally, it was pleaded that the trial court had rightly rejected the application
moved by the petitioner herein that he was protected under Section 197 CrPC,
from being prosecuted without sanction.
6. There is no representation on behalf of the complainant/respondent
No.2 before this Court though Mr. Ajay Singh Kotwal appeared on his behalf on
earlier occasions.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 5 who were also police
officers working as SHOs at Police Stations Miran Sahib and R S Pura at the
relevant point of time had supported the contentions raised by the petitioner’s
counsel and submits that the petition be allowed and proceedings against the
petitioner be quashed.
CRMC No. 537/2015 Page 4 of 12
8. Heard and considered the rival submissions on both the sides and
perused the pleadings/record.
9. As per the complaint filed by the complainant – Satish Kumar against
petitioner herein and some other police officers, it had been alleged that on the
death of one Indu Rani W/O Kulwant Singh Manhas, as a result of bullet injury
at her matrimonial house on 09.05.2005, the complainant and Vishwanath
Manhas were taken into custody illegally and unauthorisedly on 10 th day of
May, 2005; that on motion for bail before the learned Judicial Magistrate at R S
Pura, a false report was filed, that the complainant and Vishwanath Manhas
were not in confinement, as such, their bail plea was dismissed by the Court;
that the complainant was kept under illegal detention w.e.f 10.05.2005 to
01.06.2005 in different police stations, from 10.05.2005 to 17.05.2005 at P/S
Miran Sahib, from 17.05.2005 to 21.05.2005 at P/S R S Pura, from 21.05.2005
the complainant was taken to PP Baspur and was again shifted to P/S Miran
Sahib where he remained held up till 01.06.2005; that he used to be shifted by
accused Kulbir Singh Bhau SHO concerned from one police station to other on
the instructions of accused- Rajeshwar Singh, petitioner herein; that the
complainant and Vishwanath Manhas again moved a fresh bail application in the
court of ld. 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, and the SHO concerned again
submitted a palpably false report contrary to the facts; it was alleged that all the
accused including the petitioner herein and few constables subjected the
complainant to third-degree physical torture and in view of the inhuman act of
the accused persons the complainant sustained serious injuries on both of his
legs, inner thighs, inflicting internal injuries and that the accused had kept the
complainant in their illegal confinement, brutally tortured for none of his faults
and that too without registering a case against him.
CRMC No. 537/2015 Page 5 of 12
10. As such, the complaint was made to the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Jammu. The learned Judicial Magistrate (Excise Magistrate) Jammu, vide order
dated 03.03.2006 took cognizance against four accused including the petitioner
herein for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 342/330/34
RPC and issued process against them and in view of the offence punishable
under Section 330 RPC being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the
complaint was committed for trial to the Sessions Court, Jammu and this is how
the complaint landed in the court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu.
11. During the pendency of the complaint, the petitioner herein moved an
application for dropping of proceedings on the ground that the prosecution
against him is barred under Section 197 CrPC. The Trial Court, on consideration
of the matter after discussing the law laid down by the Apex Court in various
cases, came to the conclusion that the accused No.4, the petitioner herein, who
happened to be police officer is alleged to have committed the acts, which
formed the gravamen of the allegations contained in the complaint lodged by the
complainant alleging wrong confinement at various places without any
justification and given merciless beating, in such circumstances it cannot be said
that act complained of by the complainant against accused no.4, petitioner
herein have a reasonable nexus with his official duty. As such, he was held not
entitled to immunity from criminal proceedings, without sanction provided
under Section 197 CrPC, and as such, the trial court held that none of the
accused including the petitioner herein were entitled to protection under Section
197 CrPC and dismissed their application.
12. On a consideration of the matter having regard to the rival
submissions made and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that
the petitioner allegedly while working as SDPO R S Pura as a supervisory
officer, admitted that when inquest proceedings were initiated regarding the
CRMC No. 537/2015 Page 6 of 12
mysterious death of a woman namely Indu Rani regarding which a case FIR was
registered later, the complainant was arrested on 10.05.2005 and was let off. The
complainant, however, alleged that he was not only taken into custody on
10.05.2005 and continued in custody being rotated from one police station to
other up to 01.06.2005 and that during this period, all the police officers arrayed
as accused in the complaint including the petitioner herein, had subjected him to
third-degree torture, causing serious internal injuries on his person.
13. The petitioner, in his petition, has stated that he as a supervisory
officer, had no direct role with the investigation of the case and that he cannot be
prosecuted for the commission of any offence relating to his official duty unless
a Government sanction is obtained for prosecution and in absence of any such
sanction, he cannot be proceeded, in a complaint pending before the Trial Court.
14. The Trial Court has taken a view that no such protection is available
to the petitioner herein, from facing of the prosecution in the complaint lodged
by the complainant about his illegal custody and the torture to which he was
allegedly subjected to. Section 197 CrPC, which was applicable at the time of
filing of the complaint provided that when any person who is judge within the
meaning of Section 19 of the RPC or when any Magistrate or when any public
servant who is not removable from his office save by or with the consent of the
State Government or the Government of India is accused of any offence alleged
to have committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of
his official duties, no court take cognizance of such offence except with the
previous sanction. The question that is required to be determined is as to
whether the alleged acts of the petitioner, would fall within the scope of his
official duties as to attract the provisions contained in Section 197 of CrPC.
What is meant by acts or purported acts in discharge of official duties has been a
CRMC No. 537/2015 Page 7 of 12
subject matter of discussion and debate before the Apex Court in a number of
cases.
15. In (2013) 15 SCC 624, the Supreme Court in the context of provisions
contained in Section 197 CrPC interpreted the expression ‘official duty’ in the
following manner.
“56. The expression “official duty” would in the absence of
any statutory definition, therefore, denote a duty that arises
by reason of an office or position of trust or authority held
by a person. It follows that in every case where the question
whether the accused was acting in discharge of his official
duty or purporting to act in the discharge of such a duty
arises for consideration, the Court will first examine
whether the accused was holding an office and, if so, what
was the nature of duties cast upon him as holder of any such
office. It is only when there is a direct and reasonable nexus
between the nature of the duties cast upon the public servant
and the act constituting an offence that protection Under
Section 197 Code of Criminal Procedure may be available
and not otherwise. Just because the accused is a public
servant is not enough. A reasonable connection between his
duties as a public servant and the acts complained of is
what will determine whether he was acting in discharge of
his official duties or purporting to do so, even if the acts
were in excess of what was enjoined upon him as a public
servant within the meaning of that expression Under
Section 197 of the Code.”
16. In Devinder Singh & Ors. V. State of Punjab, (2016) 12 SCC 87, the
Supreme Court, after taking note of all its previous decisions on the issue,
summarized the principles emerging therefrom in paragraph 39 as under:
“39. The principles emerging from the aforesaid decisions are
summarized hereunder:
I. Protection of sanction is an assurance to an
honest and sincere officer to perform his duty
honestly and to the best of his ability to further
public duty. However, authority cannot be
camouflaged to commit crime.
II. Once act or omission has been found to have been
committed by public servant in discharging his
duty it must be given liberal and wide
construction so far its official nature is
concerned. Public servant is not entitled to
indulge in criminal activities. To that extent
Section 197 Code of Criminal Procedure has to
be construed narrowly and in a restricted manner.
CRMC No. 537/2015 Page 8 of 12
III. Even in facts of a case when public servant has
exceeded in his duty, if there is reasonable
connection it will not deprive him of protection
Under Section 197 Code of Criminal Procedure
There cannot be a universal Rule to determine
whether there is reasonable nexus between the act
done and official duty nor it is possible to lay
down such rule.
IV. In case the assault made is intrinsically connected
with or related to performance of official duties
sanction would be necessary Under Section 197
Code of Criminal Procedure, but such relation to
duty should not be pretended or fanciful claim.
The offence must be directly and reasonably
connected with official duty to require sanction. It
is no part of official duty to commit offence. In
case offence was incomplete without proving, the
official act, ordinarily the provisions of Section
197 Code of Criminal Procedure would apply.
V. In case sanction is necessary it has to be decided
by competent authority and sanction has to be
issued on the basis of sound objective assessment.
The court is not to be a sanctioning authority.
VI. Ordinarily, question of sanction should be dealt
with at the stage of taking cognizance, but if the
cognizance is taken erroneously and the same
comes to the notice of Court at a later stage,
finding to that effect is permissible and such a
plea can be taken first time before appellate
Court. It may arise at inception itself. There is no
requirement that accused must wait till charges
are framed.
VII. Question of sanction can be raised at the time of
framing of charge and it can be decided prima
facie on the basis of accusation. It is open to
decide it afresh in light of evidence adduced after
conclusion of trial or at other appropriate stage.
VIII. Question of sanction may arise at any stage of
proceedings. On a police or judicial inquiry or in
course of evidence during trial. Whether sanction
is necessary or not may have to be determined
from stage to stage and material brought on
record depending upon facts of each case.
Question of sanction can be considered at any
stage of the proceedings. Necessity for sanction
may reveal itself in the course of the progress of
the case and it would be open to accused to place
material during the course of trial for showing
what his duty was. Accused has the right to lead
evidence in support of his case on merits.
IX. In some case it may not be possible to decide the
question effectively and finally without giving
opportunity to the defence to adduce evidence.
CRMC No. 537/2015 Page 9 of 12
Question of good faith or bad faith may be
decided on conclusion of trial.”
17. The Apex Court in a case tilted ‘G C Manjunath & Ors. V. Seetaram’
reported as (2025) 5 SCC 390, has held that in a case of alleged police excesses
prior sanction to prosecute is mandatory when there exists a reasonable nexus
between the act complained of and the discharge of official functions. A similar
view has been taken by the Apex Court in ‘D. Devaraja V. Owais Sabeer
Hussain‘ reported as (2020) 7 SCC 695; and ‘Gurmeet Kour V. Davendra
Gupta & Anr’. reported as (2025) 5 SCC 481; and ‘Anjani Kumar V. State of
Bihar‘ reported as (2008) 5 SCC 248.
18. In view of the enunciation of law on the subject, it is clear that not
only the acts which have been done by the public servant in exercise of his
official duty but even the acts, which a public servant has done in purported
exercise of official duty, would be covered under the protective umbrella of
Section 197 CrPC, therefore, the test is whether there is a reasonable nexus
between act done by public servant and his official duties. Even if a public
servant has exceeded his powers while discharging his official duties, Section
197 CrPC would come into play. Section 197 CrPC, is a shield to the public
servants, who cannot be removed from their services, without the sanction of the
Govt. from their false and unwarranted prosecution, without a formal sanction to
prosecute. The idea is to protect them from any kind of harassment, at the hands
of unscrupulous elements.
19. A Co-ordinate Bench of this court, in a case CRM(M) No.33/2021
tilted ‘Pawan Singh Rathore V. UT of J&K & Ors.‘ vide judgment dated
21.11.2024 while dissecting the duty of a police officer and the acts done by him
has observed in paragraph 20 of the judgment, which being relevant is
reproduced as under:-
CRMC No. 537/2015 Page 10 of 12
“20. From the foregoing analysis of law on the subject, it is
clear that not only the acts which have been done by a
public servant in exercise of his official duty, but even the
acts which a public servant has done in purported
exercise of official duty, would be covered under the
protective umbrella of Section 197 of CrPC. The test is
whether there is a reasonable nexus between the act done
by a public servant and his official duties. Even if, a
public servant has exceeded his powers while discharging
his official duties, Section 197 of CrPC would come into
play. Thus, in a case where Deputy Superintendent of
Police while escorting a prisoner to the Court, beats him
up, while the prisoner tries to escape from the custody
and in the process, uses excessive force, the Deputy
Superintendent of Police would be entitled to protective
umbrella of Section 197 of CrPC because preventing a
prisoner from escaping the custody is connected with his
official duties and in the process, if such police officer
has exceeded his powers, he would be acting in purported
exercise of his official duty. However, if we take another
instance of a police officer thrashing a passerby without
any rhyme or reason, in such a case, his act would
neither be in the discharge of official duties, nor in the
purported discharge of official duties. Thus, the police
officer would not be entitled to the protective umbrella of
Section 197 of CrPC in such a case.”
20. Having regard to the aforesaid legal position and reverting to the facts
of the present case, the petitioner as a gazetted police officer who cannot be
removed from his office without a previous sanction of the Government, as a
supervisory police officer as SDPO R S Pura is alleged to have misused his
authority not only by keeping the complainant in illegal custody but also
subjecting him to third-degree torture along with other police officers,
particularly, in the face of the fact that when he has taken a stand that the
complainant on being called to the police station had been released on the same
day on 10.05.2005, whereas the complainant had alleged that he was kept in
custody at various police stations to hide his whereabouts right from 10.05.2005
to 01.06.2005 and that he was subjected to third-degree torture by the police
officers including the petitioner herein, the alleged illegal custody as well as
subjecting him to torture can be stated to be the acts in exercise of and in excess
CRMC No. 537/2015 Page 11 of 12
of his official duty or even in purported exercise of his official duty so as to be
covered under the protective umbrella of Section 197 CrPC providing for no
prosecution without sanction.
21. The acts complained of in the complaint against the petitioner herein
being part of his official duty or its colour, the petitioner as a police officer
having protection of Section 197 CrPC cannot be prosecuted by the complainant
in his complaint, without a valid sanction for prosecution. Viewed thus, without
commenting on the merits of the accusations against the petitioner herein, it is
held that he cannot be prosecuted, for want of sanction for prosecution. In such a
situation, the taking of cognizance by the learned Magistrate and rejecting the
plea of the Trial Court, are held arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable.
22. Having regard to the foregoing reasons and discussion made
hereinabove, petition is allowed and the impugned cognizance order passed by
the learned Magistrate and impugned order dated 11.05.2015 passed by the Trial
Court are hereby set aside and quashed qua petitioner herein. The learned
Magistrate, however, shall be at liberty on receiving ‘sanction to prosecute’ to
revisit the cognizance.
23. Petition is disposed of as allowed, alongwith application(s).
(M A Chowdhary)
Judge
JAMMU
08.04.2026.
Raj Kumar
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/ No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/ No
Raj Kumar
2026.04.08 17:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRMC No. 537/2015 Page 12 of 12
