Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ms. Sonali Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17614
1 MCRC-19528-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 23rd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 19528 of 2016
MS. SONALI MISHRA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manish Datt, Sr. Advocate with Shri Eshaan Datt - Advocate for
the petitioners.
Shri Ishteyaq Husain, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/LRs.
Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi - PL for for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has
been preferred by the petitioners seeking quashment of the impugned order
dated 30.08.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Sihora, District Jabalpur in Misc. Criminal Case No. 1839/2010, whereby
cognizance has been taken for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian
Penal Code and bailable warrants have been issued against the petitioners,
along with a prayer for quashment of the entire criminal proceedings arising
therefrom.
2. The facts, as borne out from the record and the petition, reveal that the
petitioners are senior public servants belonging to the Indian Police Service
and Indian Administrative Service respectively and, at the relevant time,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
MASSEY
Signing time: 3/5/2026
6:18:50 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17614
2 MCRC-19528-2016
were posted as Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Sihora and Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Sihora. It is alleged that on the night of 20.02.1996, during
routine patrolling, a scooter bearing registration No. CIJ-3892 was found
parked in an unclaimed condition and was seized by the police in exercise of
powers under Section 25 of the Police Act. A seizure memo and panchnama
were prepared accordingly. Subsequently, the complainant/respondent No.2
filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. alleging that the petitioners
forcibly took away his scooter and threatened him, thereby committing an
offence punishable under Section 392 IPC. Statements of the complainant
and other witnesses were recorded under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. However,
reports submitted by the Station House Officer and the Superintendent of
Police indicated that the vehicle was found unclaimed, no ownership
documents were produced, and the seizure was carried out in accordance
with law in discharge of official duty. Despite these materials, the learned
Magistrate proceeded to take cognizance and issued bailable warrants against
the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in addition to oral submissions,
has also filed detailed written arguments, contending that the entire
prosecution case itself demonstrates that the act complained of arose during
patrolling duty and consisted of seizure of an unclaimed vehicle, which
squarely falls within the statutory obligation under Section 25 of the Police
Act. It is submitted that seizure panchnama was prepared in accordance with
law, no independent witness has supported the allegation of use of force, and
no medical evidence exists to substantiate any coercive act. It is further urged
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
MASSEY
Signing time: 3/5/2026
6:18:50 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17614
3 MCRC-19528-2016
that an enquiry conducted by the Superintendent of Police has categorically
found that the petitioners acted in discharge of official duty and that the
vehicle was unclaimed at the relevant time.
4. Placing reliance on a catena of judgments, learned counsel for the
petitioners has contended that the protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is
attracted where the act complained of has reasonable nexus with official
duty, even if it is alleged to be in excess thereof. In Ajaya Kumar Barik vs.
State of Odisha and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 154 , it has been held that
where seizure of a vehicle by police is connected with investigation and
official duty, sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is mandatory before taking
cognizance. Similarly, 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. Reliance has also been placed on 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.
5. Further reliance has been placed on 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
MASSEY
Signing time: 3/5/2026
6:18:50 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17614
4 MCRC-19528-2016
nexus with official duty and that even acts done in purported discharge of
duty fall within the ambit of Section 197 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel has also
relied upon Matajog Dobey vs. H.C. Bhari, (1955) 2 SCC 388 and State of
Orissa vs. Ganesh Chandra Jew, (2004) 8 SCC 40 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 reliance has been placed on 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.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on
Choudhury Parveen Sultana vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 2009 SC 1404 , to
contend that protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not available where the
act constitutes misuse or abuse of authority and is not part of official duty. It
is further submitted that at the stage of cognizance, the Court is only required
to see whether a prima facie case exists. Reliance has also been placed on
Alka Bapu Gund vs. Prakash Kanhaiyalal Kankaria, (2017) 11 SCC 108 to
submit that this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
ought not to undertake appreciation of evidence or conduct a mini trial.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record,
this Court finds that the pivotal issue is whether the act alleged against the
petitioners was done while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official
duty so as to attract the bar under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The legal position on
this aspect is no longer res integra.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
MASSEY
Signing time: 3/5/2026
6:18:50 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17614
5 MCRC-19528-2016
8. 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
the provision cannot be construed narrowly so as to defeat its object. It has
been repeatedly held that even acts done in excess of duty would fall within
the protective ambit if they are reasonably connected with official functions.
9. In Amal Kumar Jha and Ganesh Chandra Jew (supra) , it has been
further 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 been categorically 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.
10. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it is
evident that the seizure of the vehicle was carried out during patrolling duty
and in exercise of statutory powers under Section 25 of the Police Act, which
obligates police officers to take charge of unclaimed property. The material
available on record clearly indicates that when the scooter was taken away
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
MASSEY
Signing time: 3/5/2026
6:18:50 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17614
6 MCRC-19528-2016
from the spot by the petitioners the complainant was present there and was
claiming that the scooter belonged to him. On that time the petitioner no.1
the then SDOP took scooter to nearby Khatela police post in the same night
and got it seized , which was seized by head constable Ram Mani Dubey and
sent to PS Sihora on the next day when seizure was made on 26/2/1996 and
till date the scooter remain stationed at the aforesaid police station. It is clear
from the material available on record that in aforesaid circumstances the
petitioners should have been more careful while seizing the scooter and this
excess action/controversy could have been avoided. In these circumstances
whether sanction is necessary, the test is whether the act is totally
unconnected with the official duty or if there is a reasonable nexus with the
official duty. It is settled law that if the act alleged is reasonably connected
with discharge of his official duty, it does not matter if they have exceeded
the scope of his power or acted beyond the four corners of law.
11. In this case the seizure of the scooter was carried out by the petitioners
which is exceeded beyond their official power/duty but the act of the
petitioners are well connected to the official duty and there is a clear
reasonable nexus with the official duty therefore it does not matter if they
have exceeded the scope of his power or acted beyond the official duty
hence sanction u/s 197 of the Cr.P.C. should have been necessary upon
before taking cognizance with the trial court.
12. The reliance placed by the respondents on Choudhury Parveen Sultana
does not advance their case, as the said judgment applies to cases where the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
MASSEY
Signing time: 3/5/2026
6:18:50 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17614
7 MCRC-19528-2016
act is wholly unconnected with official duty or is a clear abuse of authority
for personal purposes. In the present case, there is no material to suggest any
personal gain or motive, and the act is clearly traceable to statutory duty.
Even assuming that there was some excess in the manner of seizure, the
same would not take the act outside the purview of Section 197 of Cr.P.C.,
as held in Amal Kumar Jha (supra) and Jagdish Singh Meena (supra).
13. This Court further finds that the essential ingredients of the offence
under Section 392 of IPC are conspicuously absent. There is no material
indicating any dishonest intention or wrongful gain. The vehicle was
admittedly taken to the police station and same has been seized . In absence
of any essential ingredients of the offence under Section 392 IPC and cogent
evidence regarding the said offence the case is prima facie not made out
against petitioner u/s 392 IPC.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the authoritative
pronouncements referred to hereinabove, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the learned Magistrate has committed a jurisdictional error in
taking cognizance against the petitioners without prior sanction under
Section 197 of Cr.P.C., despite the act complained of being reasonably nexus
with discharge of official duty and essential igredients of the offence u/s 392
of IPC are completely missing therefore the continuation of the proceedings
would amount to abuse of the process of law.
15. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated
30.08.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sihora,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
MASSEY
Signing time: 3/5/2026
6:18:50 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17614
8 MCRC-19528-2016
District Jabalpur in Misc. Criminal Case No. 1839/2010 is set aside.
Consequently, the entire criminal proceedings arising therefrom against the
petitioners stand quashed. The bailable warrants issued against the
petitioners are also hereby cancelled.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
SM
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
MASSEY
Signing time: 3/5/2026
6:18:50 PM
