IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.L.P..No. 500 of 2009() ---------------------------------- CC.2041/2003 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MUVATUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------- JOHN, S/O.ULAHANNAN, ULLATTUKUDIYIL VEEDU, KIZHAKOMBU KARA, KOOTHATTUKULAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.V.B.HARI NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED/STATE: ------------------------------------------------ 1. C.R. RAJASUNDARAM, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOOTHATUKULAM POLICE STATION. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K. PUSHPALATHA. THIS CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.L.P. NO. 500 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009. J U D G M E N T This Special Leave Petition is preferred against the order of acquittal in C.C.2041/03 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Muvattupuzha. It is the case of the complainant that the accused who was a Sub Inspector of Police, Koothattukulam Police Station had committed the offences u/Ss. 323, 324 and 341 IPC and therefore he is liable to be prosecuted for the same. The Court below found that the Sub Inspector of Police was exercising his function as a Sub Inspector and if at all anything had happened it was in the discharge of his official duty and therefore sanction is necessary u/s 197 of the Cr.P.C. to proceed against him. The facts of the case would reveal that the complainant and his brother were on quarreling terms and there was a suit for partition pending and allegation against the accused is to the effect that the Sub Inspector of Police wanted the complainant Crl.L.P. NO. 500 OF 2009 -2- to settle the matter with his brother. But on the contra the accused would contend that he has nothing to do with the same but on 16.5.98 he got a telephonic message from the brother of the complainant that the complainant and his wife are attempting to commit criminal trespass into the courtyard of the brother and therefore interference of the police was necessary. Then it is stated the police went to the spot, removed the resistance and registered a crime as Crime No.93/98 of Koothattukulam Police Station. So it is very clear that the action is on account of the complaint given by the brother regarding the trespass and so the Sub Inspector of Police was exercising only his official function as a law enforcing officer and therefore when such is the case it has to be stated that sanction is required u/s 197 Cr.P.C. This is what the learned Magistrate has held and therefore it does not call for any interference. Therefore this Crl.L.P. lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-