SC: No legal shield for killing in plain clothes

In a landmark verdict reinforcing the principles of accountability and justice, the Supreme Court has ruled that police personnel cannot claim immunity under Section 197 of the CrPC when accused of killing a civilian in a fake encounter while in plain clothes. The apex court’s decision came in the case of Head Constable Raj Kumar & Others vs State of Punjab & Anr, delivered on 29 April 2025.

Case background: Civilian killed in alleged fake encounter

The incident occurred on 16 June 2015 near Verka, Amritsar. A group of Punjab police personnel, reportedly in plain clothes, intercepted a Hyundai i20 vehicle and opened fire on its occupant, one Mukhjit Singh alias Mukha. The complainant, Princepal Singh, who was a witness to the event, claimed the police acted without provocation or warning, killing the civilian at close range.

Subsequent public outrage and an investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) found that the police version of a self-defence operation was fabricated. CCTV footage showed the convergence of police vehicles on the civilian’s car, corroborating the eyewitness accounts.

Key issue: Was sanction under CrPC 197 needed?

The accused officers sought to quash the criminal proceedings against them, claiming that the alleged act was committed in the course of their official duties and hence required prior government sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC before any court could take cognisance.

However, the Supreme Court categorically rejected this defence, stating that killing a civilian while not in uniform and without any apparent law enforcement necessity does not fall within the purview of official duty.

“The cloak of official duty cannot be extended to acts intended to thwart justice,” the court stated, citing its earlier decision in Gauri Shankar Prasad v State of Bihar.

DCP also under scrutiny

Interestingly, the complainant also challenged the High Court’s decision to exonerate Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Parampal Singh under Section 201 IPC (destruction of evidence). Singh was alleged to have ordered the removal of the vehicle’s registration plates from the scene, which could constitute tampering with crucial evidence.

While the High Court had quashed proceedings against the DCP for want of sanction under CrPC 197, the Supreme Court overruled this finding, holding that such an act, if proved, was not connected with any lawful duty.

The Court reinstated proceedings against the DCP, observing:

“An act that is per se directed to erasing a potential exhibit cannot be regarded as reasonably connected with any bona fide police duty.”

What the ruling means

This verdict is significant in multiple respects:

  • It reasserts that fake encounters and extrajudicial killings have no legal protection.

  • It establishes that wearing plain clothes and misusing official weapons strips officers of CrPC 197 immunity.

  • It signals that superior officers involved in tampering with evidence will not be spared.

  • It strengthens the rights of civilians and the accountability of police personnel, even in politically sensitive or high-risk operations.

The Court added that the argument of mistaken identity or good faith cannot be decided at the stage of framing charges and must be evaluated during the trial.

No bar from pending police FIR

Another key issue raised was whether the Magistrate could proceed with the private complaint when an FIR (No. 242/2015) was already pending, citing Section 210 CrPC. The Court dismissed this argument, pointing out that no charge sheet had been filed in the FIR, and repeated status reports showed no progress. Hence, the private complaint could proceed.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment marks a crucial reaffirmation of the rule of law and sends a clear message against the misuse of police power. It puts to rest the notion that police actions, even if criminal, can be shielded behind the veil of “official duty,” especially when evidence points to a premeditated and unlawful act.

With the charges now reinstated against all 10 accused, including the DCP, the case will proceed in the trial court, where the evidence will be scrutinised and justice—hopefully—delivered.