IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 6TH ASWINA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 2557 of 2011 -------------------------------- CC.221/2011 of JFCM, NILAMBUR ....... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ALAVI C, S/O.MUHAMMED, CHOLAKKATTUTHODI HOUSE, VELLILA, MANKADA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN 682 031. 2. ABDUL KHADER, S/O.AHAMMED, PUTHALATH HOUSE, KAIPINI, KURUMBALANGODE, CHUNGATHARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 679 334. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN CRMC 2557/2011 ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT BEFORE JFCM NILAMBUR DT. 24.5.10 AND NUMBERED THE SAME AS CC 221/2011 ANNEXURE-B TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME 104/09 DT. 14.2.09 OF THE NILAMBUR ANNEXURE D TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE C /TRUE COPY/ N.K.Balakrishnan, J. ------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2557 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of September, 2011 ORDER Petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.No.221/2011 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur, was the Sub Inspector of Police, Nilambur Police Station. A private complaint was lodged by the second respondent against the petitioner alleging offence under Sections 341, 323 and 324 of Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that on 14.02.2009 at about 7.30 p.m., while the second respondent was riding a motor cycle and when he reached Chandakunnu, petitioner intercepted the vehicle and shouted at him and thereafter, petitioner slapped on the face of the second respondent and also caused injury on his back by beating with the Latty/baton. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that based on the sworn statement given by the second respondent, learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 324 of Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the fact that no sanction was obtained as required under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure was not at all considered by the learned Magistrate and so the cognizance taken is bad and it is liable to be quashed. It is pointed CRMC 2557/2011 2 out that in fact a case was registered against the second respondent by the petitioner stating that on 14.20.2009 while petitioner along with his other police officials were on duty in connection with a procession organised by Little Flower Catholic Church and when the procession reached Chandakunnu at about 7.15 p.m., the motor cycle ridden by the second respondent crashed into the procession and caused obstruction to the vehicles and pedestrians. Immediately petitioner removed the obstruction caused and approached the second respondent; his name and address were noted. But then, second respondent fled away from the scene leaving the motor cycle there and so, second respondent could not be arrested then and there. It is further stated that on the same day at about 7.25 p.m., the motor cycle was seized and taken to the police station and case was registered against the second respondent under Section 283 of Indian Penal Code. A charge sheet with regard to the same was filed by the petitioner which is shown as Annexure-C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the particular factual background, as the second respondent was proved to have committed the offence mentioned above, even if second respondent was taken into custody, it cannot be said that it was not part of the official duty of the petitioner he is expected to discharge. It is submitted that it is a case where even if the allegations stated in the complaint are accepted, it is clear that the petitioner was acting CRMC 2557/2011 3 or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty. It is also submitted that no document was produced to show that any injury was caused to the second respondent/complaint. Whatever that be, the act complained of was so reasonably connected with the official duty to be discharged by the petitioner and as such, it cannot be said that sanction under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure is not required at all. Reliance was placed on the decision in Moosa Vallikkadan v. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KLT 437). 4. On going through Annexure-C and the allegations mentioned in the complaint, it would leave no doubt that petitioner, who was the Sub inspector of Police, was discharging his official duty in connection with a procession, seized the motor cycle and as such, prosecuting the petitioner sanction under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure is required. Since no sanction was obtained, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. In the result, this petition is allowed. The cognizance taken by Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nilambur in C.C.No.221/2011 is quashed. But, it is made clear that complainant can, if he so chooses, proceed against the petitioner after obtaining sanction under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure. (N.K.Balakrishnan, Judge) tkv