Case Title: Head Constable Raj Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr.
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.: 8656-8657/2019 (with connected Criminal Appeal No. 2289/2025)
Date of Judgment: 29th April 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta

Key Facts and Proceedings

1. Incident:
   16th June 2015: Police encounter at Verka, Amritsar, resulting in the death of Mukhjit Singh @ Mukha.
   Allegations: Nine police officials in plain clothes surrounded victim's car and fired indiscriminately. DCP Parampal Singh allegedly directed removal of car's registration plates to destroy evidence.

2. Legal Proceedings:
   FIR No. 242/2015 (Police Version): Registered under Section 307 IPC (attempted murder) and Arms Act, claiming self-defense against a gangster.
   SIT Report (06.07.2016): Found police version false, recommended prosecution of eight officers for culpable homicide (Section 304 IPC).
   Private Complaint No. 112/2016: Filed by Principal Singh (victim's associate) under Sections 302, 201, etc. IPC against nine officers and DCP.
   Magistrate’s Order (17.08.2017): Summoned accused officers under Sections 302/149 IPC and DCP under Section 201 IPC.
   Sessions Court (22.03.2018): Framed charges against nine officers.

3. High Court Order (20.05.2019):
   Upheld charges against nine officers.
   Quashed proceedings against DCP citing lack of sanction under Section 197 CrPC.

Legal Issues

1. Whether the High Court erred in refusing to quash charges against the nine police officials.

2. Whether sanction under Section 197 CrPC was mandatory for prosecuting DCP Parampal Singh.

Supreme Court’s Decision & Reasoning

I. SLP Nos. 8656-8657/2019 (Accused Police Officials)

1. Dismissed.
   Prima Facie Evidence: Eyewitness accounts, SIT report, and CCTV footage established a credible case of concerted firing by officials.
   Section 197 CrPC Inapplicable: Acts of surrounding a civilian car and firing bore no nexus to official duties (Gauri Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar relied).
   Section 210 CrPC Argument Rejected: Pending FIR investigation did not bar complaint proceedings as no police report was filed.

II. Criminal Appeal No. 2289/2025 (Complainant’s Appeal)

1. Allowed.
   Sanction Not Required for DCP: Alleged destruction of evidence (removing car plates) was not part of official duty (Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari applied).
   Summoning Order Restored: Complainant’s evidence (CW-1 & CW-2) sufficed for trial.
   Key Precedents Relied On:
   Gauri Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar (2000) 5 SCC 15: Clarified scope of Section 197 CrPC.
   Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari (1955) 28 ITR 941: "Reasonable connection" test for official acts.Ratio Decidendi:
   Section 197 CrPC protects only acts with a direct nexus to official duties. Criminal acts (e.g., murder, evidence tampering) fall outside this protection.
   Prima facie evidence at charge-framing stage need not be conclusive but must disclose offence.Significance:
   Reinforces accountability of public servants for criminal acts.
   Clarifies that sanction is no shield for actions unrelated to official functions.Conclusion:
   Nine officers to face trial for murder.
   DCP Parampal Singh reinstated as accused under Section 201 IPC.