Monday - April 27, 2026

Weather: 17°C

English Hindi

REGD.-HP-09-0015257

Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Insta Email Print
HPHighCourtShimla

HP High Court act tough against police officer showing their khaki Power

Shimla, April 27: In a significant ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has set aside the discharge of a police officer accused of illegally detaining and assaulting an informer, holding that such acts cannot be shielded under the guise of official duty. 

Delivering the judgment in Cr.MMO No. 345 of 2020, Justice Sandeep Sharma ruled that prosecution sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC is not required when a public servant’s actions have no reasonable nexus with official duty. 

Informer beaten, detained despite giving correct information

The case stems from a 2016 incident in Shimla where complainant Nitesh Gupta reported a roadside assault to police. Instead of acting on the tip-off, the then SHO of Boileauganj police station allegedly detained Gupta, assaulted him, used abusive language, and confined him in the lock-up. 

A subsequent inquiry by the DIG (CID) found that:

The incident reported by Gupta was true and corroborated by witnesses

Gupta was beaten inside the police station and subjected to inhuman treatment

He was illegally detained and his mobile phone seized

The SHO’s conduct amounted to “illegal action and serious misconduct” 

Lower courts erred in granting protection

Despite these findings, the trial court discharged the accused officer citing lack of prosecution sanction, a decision later upheld by the sessions court. 

However, the High Court found this reasoning flawed, observing that both courts failed to properly examine the inquiry report and the nature of allegations.

“No part of official duty to commit crime”

The High Court made it clear that:

Beating, harassing, or illegally detaining an informer cannot be part of official duty

Protection under Section 197 CrPC is meant for bona fide acts, not abuse of power

“Authority cannot be camouflaged to commit crime” 

The court emphasized that a public servant is not entitled to protection when indulging in criminal acts, even if done during service.

Setting aside the discharge order dated August 31, 2018, the High Court directed the trial court to proceed with the case in accordance with law.

Latest Stories
Apr 27
Ladakh Gets Five New Districts Ahead of Amit Shah’s Proposed Visit to Leh

Ladakh Gets 5 New Districts Ahead of HM Visit, Dia...

Apr 27
NIT Rourkela Gets Patent for Rapid Spice Adulteration Detection System

NIT Rourkela Bags Patent for Rapid Spice Adulterat...

Apr 27
President Murmu Arrives in Shimla for Her Summer Retreat

President Murmu Begins 5-Day Summer Retreat in Shi...