Madhya Pradesh High Court: Can't Prosecute Railway Officers For Acts Done During Official Inspection

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against three Railway Vigilance Officers, ruling that they were entitled to the statutory protection available to public servants under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that no prosecution could have been initiated against them without prior sanction from the competent authority.

Justice B.P. Sharma of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur passed the order on April 1, 2026, allowing three writ petitions filed by Sunil Kumar Shrivastava, Hemant Rakesh, and Neeraj Kukreja, all officers of the Vigilance Branch of the West Central Railway, Jabalpur. Advocate Ajay Shankar Raizada appeared for the petitioners, while Advocate Yaduvendra Dwivedi represented the State.

The case traces back to December 29, 2011, when the petitioners, during the course of an official vigilance inspection, examined the functioning of a Ticket Examiner, Pyar Singh Meena, aboard Train No. 11452 Rewa-Jabalpur Intercity. Meena subsequently filed a complaint alleging that railway personnel abused him, subjected him to caste-based slurs, stripped and searched him, and caused him mental and physical harassment at Jabalpur Railway Station. The Government Railway Police (GRP) at Jabalpur recorded statements, conducted a thorough inquiry, and concluded in January 2012 that no criminal case was made out against the petitioners.

Despite this clean chit, a fresh FIR Crime No. 44/2012 was registered at GRP Katni. The petitioners alleged this happened at the behest of the then Inspector General of Police, Range Rewa, Gaji Ram Meena, who belonged to the same caste and community as the complainant. In 2012, the petitioners had approached the High Court, which directed the Director General of Police, Bhopal, to examine the matter independently and without external influence.

Following that court direction, the Superintendent of Police (Rail), Jabalpur conducted an inquiry and in April 2014 concluded that only one vigilance officer, Subhash Yadav, had any culpability. No case was found against the present petitioners. Yet, three years later, a communication dated March 23, 2015, from the Station House Officer, GRP Katni, suddenly directed the petitioners to appear before the police station in connection with the same crime. This prompted the present writ petitions.

The Court did not mince words on the jurisdictional irregularity that set this entire chain in motion. The alleged incident took place at Katni Railway Station, clearly within the territorial jurisdiction of the railway police at Katni or Jabalpur. However, the Inspector General of Police, Rewa who had no territorial jurisdiction over the place of occurrence entertained the complaint and directed registration of the FIR on the very same day. "The sequence of events reveals a clear departure from settled jurisdictional discipline and reflects an unwarranted assumption of authority," the Court observed.

The Court also noted the "unusual promptitude" with which the IG Rewa acted, combined with the fact that he and the complainant shared the same caste, and held that this gave rise to a "reasonable apprehension that the process was influenced by extraneous considerations."

On the legal question, the Court examined a line of Supreme Court precedents on the scope of Section 197 CrPC including Amal Kumar Jha vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2016), Matajog Dobey vs. H.C. Bhari (1955), State of M.P. vs. Sheetla Sahai (2009), and State through CBI vs. B.L. Verma (1997) and affirmed that the protection under Section 197 applies whenever there is a reasonable nexus between the alleged act and official duty. It is not necessary that the act be strictly within the limits of duty; even acts in excess of duty are covered if they arise from the official context. Crucially, the Court held, sanction from the competent authority is a mandatory condition precedent, not a procedural formality and in its absence, the prosecution cannot be sustained.

Applying these principles, the Court held that the petitioners' alleged acts arose squarely during the course of official vigilance inspection and could not be separated from that official context. Since no sanction had been obtained, the proceedings could not continue.

The Court accordingly quashed all proceedings arising out of Crime No. 44/2012 registered at GRP Police Station, Katni against the petitioners, along with the March 23, 2015 communication directing them to appear.

Case Title: Sunil Kumar Shrivastava v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others and connected matters

Date of Judgment: April 1, 2026

Bench: Justice B.P. Sharma