A Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) at Datia, Madhya Pradesh, directed an FIR against four police personnel, including a former Station House Officer. The allegations concern illegal entry into a private residence and assault on a civilian and his family. The Datia court FIR against police assault case shows that such alleged acts do not form part of official duties and do not qualify for protection available to public servants.
Background of the Case
Judicial Magistrate First Class Vijitashwa Pushkar passed the order on an application filed by Yuvaraj Singh Bundela under Section 156(3) CrPC.
According to the complaint, Bundela lived in a rented house in Rajghat Colony, Datia, on March 27, 2024. He alleged that police personnel entered his residence without a warrant, legal authorization, or valid reason.
The complaint named Arvind Bhadauriya, the then SHO of Police Station Sinawal, Head Constable Pushpraj Jauhariya, Constable Kapil Sharma, Lady Constable Pooja Sikrwar, and other officers.
Bundela claimed that his family opposed the entry and tried to record the incident. The officers allegedly seized their mobile phones and assaulted them. They allegedly beat Bundela, his mother, sisters, aunt, and a minor child using fists, kicks, and lathis. His mother allegedly suffered a head injury from a lathi blow.
Allegations Against Police Personnel
The complainant stated that police took him to the station and continued the alleged assault. He also claimed that the officers filed a false criminal case against him and his relatives.
The court earlier noticed visible injuries on the complainant when authorities produced him before it. The Magistrate ordered a medical examination. The medical report allegedly supported the complaint. The family also alleged that officers deleted videos from their mobile phones before returning them.
Bundela submitted written complaints to senior police officials and the Superintendent of Police. However, authorities allegedly failed to take action. He then approached the court under Section 156(3) CrPC.
Court’s Findings
The Magistrate examined whether the allegations revealed cognizable offences requiring a police investigation.
The court refused to register an offence under Section 294 IPC. It found that the alleged abusive language occurred inside a private residence and not in a public place.
The court also declined to apply Sections 147, 148, and 149 IPC. Only four accused persons had clear identification at this stage.
However, the court found prima facie material supporting allegations of criminal trespass and voluntarily causing hurt. Medical records, photographs, and documents indicated that the named officers entered the residence and assaulted the complainant and his family.
No Protection of Official Duty Available
The Magistrate held that entering a private house without authority, assaulting women and a minor child, and taking mobile phones had no connection with official duties.
The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in XXX v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2026 INSC 88). The judgment clarified that courts may proceed against public servants when their alleged actions lack a reasonable link to official duties. The Datia court FIR against police assault case reinforces that public servants cannot seek official protection for unlawful personal conduct.
Why Investigation Was Necessary
The court said investigators must collect important evidence. This includes CCTV footage from the police station, forensic recovery of deleted videos, seizure of the alleged weapons, statements of injured witnesses, and inspection of the location.
The Magistrate observed that the complainant lacked the authority to collect such evidence independently.
Court’s Directions
The court allowed the application under Section 156(3) CrPC and directed the SHO of Police Station Kotwali, Datia, to register an FIR against Arvind Bhadauriya, Pushpraj Jauhariya, Kapil Sharma, and Pooja Sikrwar.
The FIR will include Sections 452 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The court also ordered a fair and impartial investigation. It asked the police to provide a copy of the FIR to the court. It also warned that non-compliance could lead to contempt proceedings.
