IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2010/17TH PHALGUNA,1931 Crl.MC.No. 872 of 2006 ( ) -------------------------- CC.1380/2003 of J.M.F.C.-I,KOTTARAKKARA PETITIONER(S): ------------- M.IQBAL, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAZHAKKOOTTAM RURAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN COMPLAINANT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-03-2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.872 of 2006 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010 ORDER This petition is filed by petition to set aside Annexure-2 show cause notice. 2. Annexure-2 show cause notice was issued by Magistrate Court to petitioner, calling upon him to show cause why an order shall not be passed under Section 250 Cr.P.C. directing him to pay compensation to second accused in the case. 3. It is seen from Annexure-2 that a crime was registered by petitioner against 11 persons alleging offence under Section 15(C) of Abkari Act. Accused nos. 2 and 5 faced trial and they were found not guilt of offence and they were acquitted. From the evidence, it was held that 2nd accused was not found having consumed alcohol at the time of examination by the doctor. 4. PW3 issued the medical certificate (Ext.P9) and it revealed that 2nd accused had not consumed liquor. The records also reveal that there was no reasonable ground for [Crl.M.C. No.872/2006] 2 making accusation against 2nd accused and hence learned Magistrate issued show cause notice. The said notice is challenged in this case. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was a Sub Inspector at the relevant time and he had detected commission of offence under Section 15(C) of Abkari Act. Eleven persons were found drinking in a public place and all of them were arrested and they were taken for medical examination also. A crime was registered against them. During trial, 9 persons were found guilty of offence and they were convicted and sentenced. Accused nos. 2 and 5 contested the case. 6. Petitioner was directed by the trial court to pay compensation under Section 250 Cr.P.C. The crime was registered suo motu by petitioner. Section 250 Cr.P.C. does not contemplate action against a police officer who has registered crime suo motu, it is argued, placing reliance upon the decision reported in Krishnan Moopan v. State of Kerala (2005 (2) KLT 700). 7. On hearing both sides and on going through the decision cited above, I find that this Court has taken a view that in cases where crime is registered suo motu in the [Crl.M.C. No.872/2006] 3 capacity of Sub Inspector and Court has taken cognizance of offence on a report filed under Section 173(2) of the Code by another officer, the Sub Inspector cannot be proceeded against under Section 250 of Cr.P.C. In this case, crime was registered suo motu and charge sheet was laid by a Circle Inspector under Section 173(2) of the Code. Applying the dictum laid down in the decision cited above, petitioner cannot be proceeded against and hence Annexure-2notice is to be quashed. In the result, Annexure-2 notice is quashed. Petitioner shall not be proceeded against on the basis of Annexure-2. Petition is allowed. Sd/- K. HEMA, JUDGE. krs.