If the authority vested in a public servant is misused for doing things which are not otherwise permitted under the law, such acts cannot claim the protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C.
In the light of the principles laid down in the judgment referred supra, this Court has to analyse the materials on record. I have already pointed out that the complainant's son was detained in illegal custody for a period of 2 days is not in dispute and also he was summoned to enquire is also not in dispute. It is also to be noted that I have already pointed out the medical evidence with regard to the fact that he was subjected to physical torture and document of Ex.P.28 is clear that he was subjected to man handling and as a result, he took treatment at Janatha Nursing Home. It is also important to note that on account of said humiliation, he took the extreme step of committing suicide as he was tortured, assaulted and detained in illegal custody for a period of 2 days in the police station. It is also apparent prima facie on record that departmental enquiry was conducted and at the fist instance the report was given against these petitioners vide report dated 25.06.2010 and the same would prima facie discloses that the police had excesses their powers. It is also not in dispute that ultimately the son of the complainant was not arraigned as an accused in the said case. It is also not in dispute that the very complainant in the said chain snatching case, has not identified the son of the complainant and there are no criminal antecedents against him. When such being the case, the protection envisaged under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. or Section 170 of KP Act cannot be extended to the petitioners herein.[Para No.27]
Learned Magistrate, in detail considered the statement of witnesses, who have been examined i.e., 7 in number and also while passing a detailed order, assigned the reasons. Learned Revisional Judge also examined the legal aspect and also the factual aspect of the case and passed a detailed reasoned order and comes to the conclusion that there is no merit in the revision. The Court also while issuing the process against the petitioners herein considered the sworn statement as well as allegations made in the complaint and has rightly come to the conclusion that it is a fit case to proceed against the petitioners herein[Para No.28]
This Court also would like to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Choudhury Parveen Sultana v. State of West Bengal and Another reported in (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 122 regarding Section 197 of Cr.P.C, wherein the object, nature and scope of Section 97 of Cr.P.C. has been reiterated. Wherein it is held that all acts done by a public servant in the purported discharge of his official duties cannot as a matter of course be brought under the protective umbrella of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. Further, there can be cases of misuse and/or abuse of powers vested in a public servant which can never be said to be a part of the official duties required to be performed by him. The underlying object of Section 197 Cr.P.C. is to enable the authorities to scrutinize the allegations made against a public servant to shield him/her against frivolous, vexatious or false prosecution initiated with the main object of causing embarrassment and harassment to the said official. However, as indicated hereinabove, if the authority vested in a public servant is misused for doing things which are not otherwise permitted under the law, such acts cannot claim the protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C. 
and have to be considered dehors the duties which a public servant is required to discharge or perform. Hence, in respect of prosecution for such excesses or misuse of authority, no protection can be demanded by the public servant concerned. [Para No.29]
The Apex Court also in the judgment of P.P.Unnikrishnan v. Puttiyottil Alikutty reported in (2000) 8 SCC 131, wherein the Apex Court observed as follows:-
................"21. If a police officer dealing with law and order duty uses force against unruly persons, either in his own defence or in defence of others and exceeds such right it may amount to an offence. But such offence might fall within the amplitude of Section 197 of the Code as well as Section 64(3) of the K.P. Act. Butif a police officer assaults a prisoner inside a lock-up he cannot claim such act to be connected with the discharge of his authority or exercise of his duty unless he establishes that he did such acts in his defence or in defence of others or any property. Similarly,if a police officer wrongfully confines a person in the lock-up beyond a period of 24 hours without the sanction of a Magistrate or an order of a court it would be an offence for which he cannot claim any protection in the normal course, nor can he claim that such act was done in exercise of his official duty. A policeman peeping a person in the-lock-up for more than 24 hours without authority is not merely abusing his duty but his act would be quite outside the contours of his duty or authority." [Para No.30]
It is also important to note that it is not in dispute that the case has been registered against the unknown person, who snatched the chain. The petitioners herein are also not disputing the fact that the son of the complainant was secured to the police station. It is also important to note that he was not identified by the complainant in the chain snatching case and that he has not been arraigned in the case subsequent to the investigation also but he was in illegal custody of the petitioners herein and subjected him for physical torture. When an innocent person was taken to the police station without arresting him and detained illegally in the custody and that apart, he was subjected to torture, no criminal antecedents against him, the act of the police officers cannot be termed as the act done in connection with discharge of public duty as it is nothing but misuse of powers vested with the petitioners, who are the police officials. The Court also has to take note of the result of detaining an innocent person in the illegal custody and subjecting him for physical torture, which is not reasonably connected with the official duty. When such being the case, the protection as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be extended and there cannot be quashing of any criminal prosecution against the petitioners herein for want of sanction. There is ample materials against the petitioners herein, which has been considered by the learned Magistrate and also the Revisional Court and both the Courts, while issuing the process and confirming the order of issuance of process, taken note of the question of fact as well as the question of law and passed a reasoned order. Hence, I do not find any merit in the petition to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein.[Para No.32]