IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1991 of 2009(B) ------------------------- SC.1217/2008 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, NEYYATTINKARA CP.25/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------------- SAIBUDHEEN, S/O.A.M. HANEEFA, AGED 44 YEARS, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, STATE CRIME RECORDS BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. REGHUNATHAN, S/O. MUTHAYYAN, IDAIVILA PUTHAN VEETTIL, THALACHANVILA, PARASALLA VILLAGE. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: dkr M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. =================== Crl.M.C. No.1991 of 2009-B =================== Dated this the 26th day of June, 2009. O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.12127/2008 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Neyyattinkara. On Annexure I complaint (C.P.No.25/.2006), Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara committed the case against the petitioner for offences under Sections 323, 341, 342, 328, 294, 192 and 211 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken contending that petitioner at the time of incident being the Sub Inspector of Police was only discharging his official duty and therefore before taking cognizance sanction should have been obtained as provided under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. Crl.M.C.No.1991/2009-B -2- 3. Learned Counsel relied on the decision in Shoukathali v. State of Kerala (2005 (3) KLT 634). Cognizance was taken in 2006. Case is now pending before the Sessions Court. Petitioner is entitled to raise the ground of want of sanction before framing charge. Petitioner is entitled to file a petition under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure for a discharge and raise the contention that cognizance cannot be taken without sanction. If such an application is filed and objection is taken about want of sanction, Assistant Sessions Judge to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner sought permission to raise that contention before the Sessions Court without appearance of the petitioner. Petitioner is entitled to file an application to dispense with his presence and if such an application is filed, Sessions Judge to pass appropriate orders in the application in accordance with law. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE dkr