IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1159 of 2008(B) -------------------------------------- CC.NO.792/2007 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, TRIVANDRUM. .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3: ---------------------------------------------- 1. SURESH, WORKING AS S.I OF POLICE, SREEKARIYAM P.S, THRIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. AJITH, WORKING AS HEAD CONSTABLE, SREEKARIYAM P.S, THRIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. GOPA KUMAR, WORKING AS CONSTABLE, SREEKARIYAM P.S, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. MR.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, MR.ANIL KUMAR A.S. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. R.K.RAJEEV, S/O KAMAL BHAI, KULAKANDAM VEEDU, MAVRATHLAKKONAM, SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. C.M. KAMMAPPU. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J. --------------------------- Crl.M.C No.1159 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- ORDER This is a petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C seeking to have Annexure A complaint quashed and all further proceedings in C.C No.792/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram dropped. 2. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C No.792/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram for having committed offences punishable under Sections 342, 384 r/w 34 IPC. Cognizance was taken on a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent. According to the complainant, on 18/03/2007 at about 9 a.m while he was on his way to Sreekaryam for his personal purpose in a Yamaha motor bike bearing reg. No. KCT 6528, he was intercepted by accused Nos. 2 and 3. It is alleged that he was forcibly taken to Sreekaryam police Station. The 1st accused asked the complainant to stand in a corner and he was abused in filthy language. The complaint is that he was illegally detained in the police station for more than 24 hours violating all norms. Later on 19/03/2007 at 12 noon he was driven away from the police station and he also complained that his mobile phone was taken away. Crl.M.C No.1159 OF 2008 Page numbers 3. Petitioners would say that the allegations are falsely implicated. True fact is that on 17/03/2007 while the 1st petitioner was on patrol duty he had intercepted the 2nd respondent who was coming on his motor bike. On demanding the papers of the vehicle he was unable to supply them. He was asked to wait for some time and a case was booked against him. Later when his friend came and shown the papers to the petitioner, he was released. 4. The 1st petitioner would say that on the next day he happened to see the 2nd respondent coming on another motor bike which aroused him suspicion. When it was found that he could not produce any valid documents of the vehicle he was taken to police station for enquiry. This is what has happened and characterized as illegal detention. Later as soon as it was established that the respondent had all necessary documents and there was nothing to suspect him, he was allowed to go. It is also stated that the petitioners acted in furtherance of their official duty and prosecution without sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C is unsustainable under law. 5. Sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C is necessary if it found that the act is in furtherance of official duty. Of course complainant can urge that his detention was without authority and he was abused in filthy language. But one has to notice that the complainant is totally silent about what had happened on Crl.M.C No.1159 OF 2008 Page numbers 17/03/2007. Petitioners have specifically pointed out that on that day the complainant had been intercepted and he was detained for a while due to his inability to show the papers relating to the vehicle. It is also seen that the case had been registered against him for the said act and that he had pleaded guilty. According to the petitioners on the next day he was found coming in another motor bike which generated suspicion. 6. It is in the light of the above facts the present complaint will have to consider. The narration in the complaint with reference to the incident on 18/03/2007 does not entail confidence in the mind of court. Especially when there is no whisper about the incident on 17/03/2007. 7. Further the petitioners say that one of the complainant was detained in custody. It was in furtherance of the official duty and they found him riding in motor bike under suspicious circumstances. There is no reason to disbelieve the petitioners and they had acted in furtherance of their official duty. 8. In the result, this petition is allowed. Further proceedings in C.C No.792/2007 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram shall stand quashed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE vdv