“Police Personnel In Plain Clothes Firing Upon Car Driver Can’t Be Considered As Official Duty”: Supreme Court

Supreme Court

In 2015, a civilian vehicle was stopped by plain-clothed police personnel in Punjab. The officers surrounded the car and opened fire, resulting in the death of the driver.

Subsequent inquiries revealed that the vehicle’s number plate had been removed on the orders of Deputy Commissioner of Police Parampal Singh—an act later characterised as destruction of evidence.

High Court Proceedings

Following the shooting, charges of murder and evidence tampering were filed against nine police officers and DCP Parampal Singh. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a May 20, 2019, order, refused to quash the charges, holding that the allegations warranted full judicial scrutiny. The officers then appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the High Court’s ruling.

Supreme Court’s April 29 Order

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta delivered the Supreme Court’s judgment on April 29. The Court upheld the High Court’s decision and dismissed the appeals filed by the nine police personnel. In its ruling, the Supreme Court emphasised that:

“The conduct of police personnel surrounding a civilian vehicle in plain clothes and jointly firing upon its occupant cannot be considered under duties of public order or effecting a lawful arrest.”

The Justices found no basis to interfere with the High Court’s judgment, stating that the material on record clearly supported the continuation of the prosecution.

Rejection Of Section 197 CrPC Defence

Eight of the officers argued that proceedings could not be initiated against them without prior sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which protects public servants from prosecution for actions performed in the discharge of official duties. The Supreme Court rebutted this defence outright:

“Equally untenable is the submission that cognisance was barred for want of sanction under Section 197 CrPC. The petitioners stand accused of surrounding a civilian vehicle in plain clothes and jointly firing upon its occupant. Such conduct, by its very nature, bears no reasonable nexus to the duties of maintaining public order or effecting lawful arrest.”

The Court underscored that merely carrying official firearms or claiming an erroneous official objective does not convert unlawful acts into bona fide exercises of police authority.

Destruction Of Evidence Charge Against DCP

Turning to the separate charge of evidence tampering against DCP Parampal Singh, the Supreme Court restored the allegation. The act of ordering the removal of the car’s number plate, the bench observed, amounted to an attempt to erase critical evidence:

“An act that is per se directed to erasing potential evidence, if ultimately proved, cannot be regarded as reasonably connected with any bona fide police duty.”

The Court reiterated its established test: whether the impugned act has “a direct and inseparable nexus to official functions.” In Singh’s case, no such connection existed.

Key Takeaways

Official Duty Does Not Shield Wrongful Acts: Actions taken solely to thwart justice lie beyond the protection of public-order or arrest powers.

Section 197 CrPC Inapplicable: When alleged conduct falls outside the scope of legitimate police functions, prior sanction for prosecution is not required.

Evidence Tampering Is a Serious Offence: Removing a vehicle’s number plate post-incident qualifies as intentional destruction of evidence, meriting criminal investigation.

The court’s decision reaffirms that law enforcement officers can’t hide behind the “cloak of official duty” when their actions subvert justice or violate legal norms.