ORDER : 1. This revision has been preferred against order dated 4.6.2008 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 9, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Revision No. 13/2008 whereby the revision preferred by private respondents herein, was allowed and order dated 2.4.2008 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur was quashed and set aside and held that cognizance against private respondents herein, cannot be taken for want of sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. and the proceedings pending against them were dropped. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that present petitioner/complainant submitted a complaint No. 01/2006) on 02.01.2006 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City, Jaipur alleging inter-alia that he was serving in Rajasthan Armed Constabulary at Jaipur. He was called for an enquiry in the matter of FIR No. 437/2005, registered at Police Station Manak Chouk pertaining to murder of three persons in departmental store “National Handloom” located at Johri Bazar, Jaipur. He reported for enquiry before police at Police Station Manak Chouk, Jaipur on 9.12.2005. He was kept under custody at various places and was released only on 13.12.2005. During this period, he was subjected to severe beating and torture by police officials for the purpose of extorting confession of committing crime in FIR No. 437/2005. Statement of complainant u/s 200 Cr.P.C. were recorded and thereafter an enquiry report u/s 202 Cr.P.C. was sought for from police. On receipt of police report u/s 202 Cr.P.C. in negative form, statements of other witnesses were recorded by the concerned Magistrate. Thereafter vide order dated 15.3.2007, cognizance was taken for offence u/s 147, 323, 342, 509 and 389 IPC by learned ACJM No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur against all the private respondents in the instant petition and one Govind Detha. Regular Cr. Case No. 166/2007 was registered. Four separate revision petitions (Nos. 99/07, 115/07, 116/07 and 129/07) were preferred by eight police officials against whom the cognizance order was passed. Regular Cr. Case No. 166/2007 was registered. Four separate revision petitions (Nos. 99/07, 115/07, 116/07 and 129/07) were preferred by eight police officials against whom the cognizance order was passed. The revision petitions were heard by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur and dismissed on 30.1.2008 with the findings that all the police officials except Govind Detha will have liberty to prefer appropriate application before learned trial Magistrate for protection, if any, available to them u/s 197 Cr.P.C. The revision petition preferred by Govind Detha was allowed and the order of taking cognizance passed against him was quashed and set aside. Pursuant to the order dated 30.01.2008 of Revisional Court, private respondents in the present petition, preferred an application u/s 197 Cr.P.C. before learned ACJM No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 5.2.2008 which was heard and rejected by the Magistrate on 2.4.2008. Hence, the present Revision has been preferred by the complainant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submitted that in the instant matter, police officials gave severe beatings and tortured the complainant in order to extort confession. All these acts of police officials cannot be said to be part of their official duty. Learned revision court erred in quashing and setting aside the proceedings pending before trial Magistrate. The act of police officials was to harass and implicate the complainant in a false case. In such a matter, the trial should have been conducted and the defence that accused acted in performance of official duties, be examined during trial. He has placed reliance on Raj Kishor Roy vs. Kamleshwar Pandey & Another, 2002 Cr.L.R. (SC) 673. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the question as to whether the protection u/s 197 Cr.P.C. is available to the accused persons, could be decided, at the most, during trial. There was no occasion at the initial stage to drop the criminal proceedings instituted against the police officials only for want of sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. He placed reliance on Bakhshish Singh Brar vs. Smt. Gurmej Kaur and Another, AIR 1988 SC 257 . 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that during investigation of a triple murder case, private respondents requisitioned the complainant/ petitioner for enquiry. On the basis of certain leads/clues available to police, the petitioner was called for enquiry. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that during investigation of a triple murder case, private respondents requisitioned the complainant/ petitioner for enquiry. On the basis of certain leads/clues available to police, the petitioner was called for enquiry. Had he been subjected to beating and torture, he could have reported the same to his higher ups when he was released. In the report submitted by police u/s 202 Cr.P.C. after enquiry, it was found by senior police officer that all the acts were done by private respondents in furtherance of their official duty. The act of the respondents cannot be separated from their official duty. The act of the respondents can also not be ascribed as an excess during performance of official duty. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that in doing official duty, even if the respondents acted in excess thereof, there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of the official duty and the excess will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the respondents from legal protection available to them u/s 197 Cr.P.C. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that the cognizance itself has been barred u/s 197 Cr.P.C. Therefore, sword of the criminal proceedings cannot be kept hanging till the complainant get a valid sanction for prosecution against the respondents. Learned revision court has rightly dropped the proceedings initiated on cognizance taken without obtaining a sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. 7. I heard learned Public Prosecutor as well. 8. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and gone through the whole material available on record. 9. Apex Court in Devinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab through CBI, (2016) 12 SCC 87 after threshing the law evolved, summarized in para no. 39 following principles with regard to sanction u/s 197 Cr.PC: 39. The principles emerging from the aforesaid decisions are summarised hereunder: 39.1 Protection of sanction is an assurance to an honest and sincere officer to perform his duty honestly and to the best of his ability to further public duty. However, authority cannot be camouflaged to commit crime. 39.2 Once act or omission has been found to have been committed by public servant in discharging his duty it must be given liberal and wide construction so far its official nature is concerned. Public servant is not entitled to indulge in criminal activities. However, authority cannot be camouflaged to commit crime. 39.2 Once act or omission has been found to have been committed by public servant in discharging his duty it must be given liberal and wide construction so far its official nature is concerned. Public servant is not entitled to indulge in criminal activities. To that extent Section 197 CrPC has to be construed narrowly and in a restricted manner. 39.3 Even in facts of a case when public servant has exceeded in his duty, if there is reasonable connection it will not deprive him of protection under Section 197 CrPC. There cannot be a universal rule to determine whether there is reasonable nexus between the act done and official duty nor is it possible to lay down such rule. 39.4 In case the assault made is intrinsically connected with or related to performance of official duties, sanction would be necessary under Section 197 CrPC, but such relation to duty should not be pretended or fanciful claim. The offence must be directly and reasonably connected with official duty to require sanction. It is no part of official duty to commit offence. In case offence was incomplete without proving, the official act, ordinarily the provisions of Section 197 CrPC would apply. 39.5 In case sanction is necessary, it has to be decided by competent authority and sanction has to be issued on the basis of sound objective assessment. The court is not to be a sanctioning authority. 39.6 Ordinarily, question of sanction should be dealt with at the stage of taking cognizance, but if the cognizance is taken erroneously and the same comes to the notice of court at a later stage, finding to that effect is permissible and such a plea can be taken first time before the appellate court. It may raise at inception itself. There is no requirement that the accused must wait till charges are framed. 39.7 Question of sanction can be raised at the time of framing of charge and it can be decided prima facie on the basis of accusation. It is open to decide it afresh in light of evidence adduced after conclusion of trial or at other appropriate stage. 39.8 Question of sanction may arise at any stage of proceedings. On a police or judicial inquiry or in course of evidence during trial. It is open to decide it afresh in light of evidence adduced after conclusion of trial or at other appropriate stage. 39.8 Question of sanction may arise at any stage of proceedings. On a police or judicial inquiry or in course of evidence during trial. Whether sanction is necessary or not may have to be determined from stage to stage and material brought on record depending upon facts of each case. Question of sanction can be considered at any stage of the proceedings. Necessity for sanction may reveal itself in the course of the progress of the case and it would be open to the accused to place material during the course of trial for showing what his duty was. The accused has the right to lead evidence in support of his case on merits. 39.9 In some cases it may not be possible to decide the question effectively and finally without giving opportunity to the defence to adduce evidence. Question of good faith or bad faith may be decided on conclusion of trial. 10. In the instant matter, during investigation in a triple murder case, police officials called upon the complainant for enquiry/ interrogation. The petitioner/complainant himself was a police constable in Rajasthan Armed Constabulary. By any stretch of imagination, the acts of respondents cannot be termed beyond “excess.” The act of respondents and their official duty, both have a reasonable connection. Learned revisional court has rightly given a finding that in such a situation, the police officials cannot be deprived of a protection available to them u/s 197 Cr.P.C. As per the principles summarized by Apex Court as stated hereinabove, the question of sanction is ought to be dealt with at the stage of taking cognizance and there is no requirement that the accused must wait till charges are framed. 11. In the instant case, the allegation is that the respondents exceeded in exercising their powers during investigation of a criminal case and assaulted the petitioner in order to extract a confession with regard to death of three persons and in that connection, the petitioner was detained for some days. It appears that the alleged conduct has an essential connection with discharge of the official duty, therefore, learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the case without previous sanction of the State Government. 12. It appears that the alleged conduct has an essential connection with discharge of the official duty, therefore, learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the case without previous sanction of the State Government. 12. So far as the cases relied upon by the petitioner are concerned, in Raj Kishore Roy’s case, allegations against the police officer were of harassment and levelling of false charges against the appellant and his brother and Bakhshish Singh Brar’s (supra) was a case of murder by way of fake encounter by police. Both these cases are factually different. 13. Apex Court in D.T. Virupakshappa vs. C. Subash, (2015) 12 SCC 231 , a case based on almost identical facts, has held that in the matter of police excesses prior sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. is necessary for taking cognizance against such police officials. 14. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Order dated 4.6.2008 passed by learned ADJ No. 9, Jaipur City, Jaipur is affirmed. It is made clear that this judgment is only on the issue of sanction. It has not considered the matter on merits and that this judgment shall not stand in the way of the petitioner approaching the State Government for sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. In case, such sanction is obtained and the same is produced before learned trial Magistrate, the Magistrate may proceed further in the case in accordance with law.