Madhya Pradesh High Court: No Prosecution Of Police Officer Without Sanction For Official Acts

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has reiterated the legal safeguard available to public servants, holding that prosecution against a police officer for acts done in discharge of official duty cannot proceed without prior sanction under law, while also cautioning against routine complaints aimed at pressurising investigating officers.

The order was passed by Justice Subodh Abhyankar while dismissing a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging concurrent orders of the trial court and the revisional court, both of which had refused to entertain a private complaint against a Station House Officer.

The petitioner had alleged that the SHO, Mohan Singh Yadav, acted mala fide in registering an FIR against him at the instance of a relative, without conducting any preliminary inquiry. According to the complaint, the FIR accused the petitioner of sending obscene messages to a woman, and while a similar complaint by the woman herself had been compromised earlier, a subsequent FIR lodged by her father was registered by the police officer in question. The petitioner argued that such conduct amounted to an offence under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code, which penalises a public servant for disobeying the law with intent to cause injury.

However, the High Court found no merit in these submissions and upheld the findings of the courts below. It noted that the trial court had dismissed the complaint primarily on the ground that no sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC had been obtained, a requirement when a public servant is sought to be prosecuted for acts performed in the course of official duty. The revisional court had affirmed this reasoning and additionally observed that the ingredients of the alleged offence were not made out.

Affirming these conclusions, the High Court held that “merely lodging of an FIR against the petitioner would not give rise to a cause of action to file a complaint under Section 166 of IPC,” making it clear that registration of an FIR, by itself, cannot be treated as a criminal act unless supported by specific legal violations.

The Court further emphasised that the FIR in question had not been quashed by any competent court, and charges under Sections 507 and 506-II of the IPC had already been framed against the petitioner in the said case. In such circumstances, the allegations against the police officer appeared to be an attempt to counter the criminal proceedings rather than a genuine grievance of illegality.

On the issue of sanction, the Court was categorical that the requirement is mandatory where the act complained of is reasonably connected with official duties. Since the FIR had been registered in the course of the officer’s duties, prior sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC, or its corresponding provision under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, was indispensable before initiating prosecution.

The judgment also contains a broader caution against misuse of criminal process to target police officials. The Court observed that entertaining such complaints without insisting on sanction could have serious consequences, noting that “if such complaints against the police personnel are entertained by the courts in a routine manner… it would lead to an unruly situation,” where accused persons may attempt to “influence, harass or pressurize the investigating officer.”

Rejecting the contention of mala fides, the Court concluded that even on a “minute scrutiny” of the complaint, the essential ingredients of the alleged offence were absent. The petition was accordingly dismissed as being devoid of merit.

Case Title: Sushil v. Mohan Singh Yadav and Anr.

Date of Order: April 16, 2026

Bench: Justice Subodh Abhyankar