Custodial Death at MIG Police Station: MP High Court Holds Section 197 Sanction Not Required Where Reasonable Nexus Test Fails
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore dismissed a criminal revision by two police constables and an inspector who sought prior-sanction protection under Section 197 CrPC against prosecution for the custodial death of Pankaj Vaishnav in December 2015, ruling that the reasonable nexus test was not satisfied.
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore, in a criminal revision decided on 16 June 2026, affirmed the order of the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which had rejected an application by three accused police personnel seeking prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). Justice Gajendra Singh, sitting singly, held that where a person dies in police custody following alleged physical assault and mental torture, the acts complained of bear no reasonable nexus to the discharge of official duty, and the statutory protection under Section 197 CrPC is therefore unavailable. The revision was dismissed and the trial court's order affirmed.
The Custodial Death of Pankaj Vaishnav
Pankaj Vaishnav, aged about 24 years, was a Class-IV employee working in the court of the Special Railway Magistrate, Indore, under the establishment of the District Court, Indore. On 19 December 2015, at around 2:00 PM, he was brought to Police Station MIG, Indore by Police Constable Rajkumar Dwivedi (Constable No. 3842) and Police Constable Krishna Kumar Patel (Constable No. 2864) for interrogation in connection with an alleged theft of a scooter vehicle. He died in the night of 19 December 2015 while in police custody at the same police station. A Marg (inquest) No. 42/15 was registered at Police Station MIG, Indore.
An enquiry was conducted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore under Section 176 CrPC into the cause of death. The ACJM submitted a report concluding that the death of Pankaj Vaishnav at MIG, Indore was culpable homicide. The Investigating Officer thereafter submitted a final report under Section 173 CrPC, resulting in Sessions Trial No. 389/2019 arising out of Crime No. 2/16 registered at PS CID Headquarters, Bhopal.
A charge-sheet was filed against Rajkumar Dwivedi, Krishna Kumar Patel, and Inspector M.A. Syed, who was posted at Police Station MIG, Indore at the time of the incident, under Sections 306, 342, and 193/32 of the Indian Penal Code.
What the Investigating Officer's Final Report Found
The final report of the Investigating Officer, as extracted in the judgment, recorded that the deceased was brought to Police Station MIG at approximately 2:00 PM on 19 December 2015 and remained in police custody until the incident occurred. During interrogation, the three accused allegedly stripped Pankaj Vaishnav of his court uniform, subjected him to physical assault and mental torture, and did not inform any of his family members or colleagues of his detention. Taking advantage of an opportunity, the deceased died by suicide. The Investigating Officer found the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC established against all three.
The final report further recorded that no entry was made in the Roznamcha (station diary) regarding the custody of Pankaj Vaishnav or the interrogation, in violation of the directions issued by the High Court in the D.K. Basu case, constituting an offence under Section 342 IPC. It also found that a false report was entered in the CCTNS system to conceal the incident, making all three collectively liable under Section 193 IPC.
An AIIMS Bhopal report dated 7 April 2018, based on autopsy, recorded redness over the scrotal region as a clearly evident antemortem injury.
The Application for Sanction and the Trial Court's Rejection
The revision petitioners filed an application before the Special Judge SC/ST (POA), 1989 under Section 197 CrPC, contending that prior government sanction was a condition precedent to their prosecution because the acts alleged were done in the discharge of official duty. The Special Judge rejected the application on 1 December 2025 on three grounds: first, no entry was recorded in the Roznamcha regarding the custody of Pankaj Vaishnav or the interrogation; second, Pankaj Vaishnav was subjected to physical assault at the police station by the revision petitioners; and third, police constables are not competent to conduct enquiry or investigation of a crime, so their acts of causing physical assault, injury, and mental torture do not fall within the purview of discharge of public or official duty.
The revision petitioners challenged this order before the High Court under Section 397/401 CrPC (now Section 438/442 BNSS), arguing that the trial court had ignored the “reasonable nexus test” and that even wrongful acts committed during official duty cannot be prosecuted without sanction. They contended that excess or irregularity does not take away statutory protection, that procedural lapses do not negate official duty, that arrest-related acts are inseparably connected with official functions, and that there was an absence of mens rea or personal motive. They also argued that the CID enquiry did not attribute any act of assault or instigation to them, and that there was no proximity or live link between their conduct and the deceased's death.
The Legal Framework: Section 197 CrPC and the Reasonable Nexus Test
Section 197 CrPC (Section 218 BNSS) bars a court from taking cognisance of an offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant who cannot be removed from service without government sanction, unless the government has first granted sanction for prosecution. The protection extends not only to acts done in the actual exercise of official duty but also to acts done in the purported exercise of official duty.
The court drew on a line of Supreme Court decisions cited by both sides. In G.C. Manjunath and Others v. Seetaram, reported as 2025 INSC 439, the Supreme Court held that prior sanction to prosecute is mandatory when there exists a reasonable nexus between the act complained of and the discharge of official functions. The same principle was affirmed in D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain, reported in (2020) 7 SCC 695, 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.
Justice Gajendra Singh summarised the governing principle: even if a public servant has exceeded his powers while discharging official duties, Section 197 CrPC would come into play, because the provision is a shield against harassment for acts done in discharge of official duty. The absence of sanction, where the test is met, is a jurisdictional bar to prosecution.
Why the Court Found the Nexus Test Unsatisfied
The court drew a clear distinction between two categories of police conduct. In one category are cases where police personnel handle a violent mob and use criminal force that exceeds the permissible scope — there, a nexus to official duty may exist. In the present case, the alleged use of force occurred when the deceased was already in custody inside the police station, and there was no occasion to exercise force at all. What followed was not an excess in the course of a legitimate official act but a series of acts — physical assault, mental torture, stripping the deceased of his court uniform, withholding information from family, and subsequent attempts to cover up the incident through false CCTNS entries — that bore no reasonable nexus to any official function.
The court held that the allegation was squarely one of custodial death and custodial violence. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Munshi Singh Gautam (D) v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2005) 9 SCC 631, Justice Gajendra Singh reproduced the observation that “death in police custody is perhaps one of the worst kinds of crime in a civilized society governed by the rule of law.” The court noted that police excesses and maltreatment of detainees tarnish the image of any civilised nation and encourage personnel to consider themselves above the law.
Against that backdrop, the court concluded that the reasonable nexus test was not satisfied on the facts of this case. The trial court had not committed any error in rejecting the application for sanction.
Outcome
Justice Gajendra Singh affirmed the order dated 1 December 2025 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (POA), 1989, Bhopal, rejecting the application under Section 197 CrPC filed by Rajkumar Dwivedi, Krishna Kumar Patel, and Inspector M.A. Syed. Criminal Revision No. 258 of 2026 was dismissed. No order as to costs was made. The matter was reserved on 24 February 2026 and pronounced on 16 June 2026.