16 Jun 2026
Order issued
ConcludedThe High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench recorded adverse findings against police personnel.
adverse finding compensation.
Source: 2026:MPHC-IND:15546
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2026-0059Indore, Madhya PradeshJudgment 16 June 2026
Indore Man and Others vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
The High Court dismissed a criminal revision filed by three police officers challenging the trial court's rejection of their claim for sanction under Section 197 CrPC. The Court held that the officers subjected the deceased [name withheld] to physical assault and mental torture while in custody at Police Station MIG, Indore, leading to his death, and subsequently attempted to cover up the incident by failing to record his custody in the Roznamcha and making false CCTNS entries. The Court affirmed that the 'reasonable nexus' test for Section 197 protection was not satisfied as the alleged acts were not in discharge of official duty.
Externally reportedV2
What this record means
This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →Detailed record
Report card
By judgment dated 16 June 2026 in CRR No. 258 of 2026, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench (Coram: Gajendra Singh, J.) adjudicated the matter concerning 3 police personnel, namely: Constable, Police Station MIG, Indore; Constable, Police Station MIG, Indore; Inspector, Police Station MIG, Indore.
- Register number
- MP 09 CW 0031
- Case reference
- CRR No. 258 of 2026 / 2026:MPHC-IND:15546
- Court and date
- High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench (Coram: Gajendra Singh, J.), 16 June 2026
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Police Station MIG, Indore; Constable, Police Station MIG, Indore; Inspector, Police Station MIG, Indore
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- 306; 342; 193; 32; 176; 173; 197
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “The above incident is not a result where revision petitioners were performing the duty to handle the violent mob and were justified in using the criminal force and exceeded their scope of use of force but it is a case …” (at para 13)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Adverse finding.
- Present status of the proceedings
- The judgment is recent and may be subject to appeal; the pendency of an appeal is not a finding.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Current position
Judgment dated 16 June 2026. This judgment may still be subject to appeal; initiation or pendency of an appeal is not a finding.
Evidence position
Recorded allegations
Custodial deathPrimary
Material fact supported
Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.
Official finding: supports allegation.
Attributed to the court
What the court found
Holding not recorded separately.
“The above incident is not a result where revision petitioners were performing the duty to handle the violent mob and were justified in using the criminal force and exceeded their scope of use of force but it is a case …” (para 13)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
Continuing record
Follow-up history
24 Sep 2026
(Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark).)
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.