IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2011 / 24TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1684 of 2011() --------------------------------------------- CMP.NO. 115/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MALAPPURAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------------- MUHAMMED KUTTY, S/O.CHEKUTTY HAJI, PANATHAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.INDIANOOR. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.RAFIQ RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND STATE ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. A.M.SIDDIQUE, S/O.MUHAMMED MASTER, SHANACHIPRA HOUSE, P.O.BHEEMANADU, MANNARKKADU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. (SUB INSPECTOR OF KOTTAKKAL).678 001 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.PIN-682 031 R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C.NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.1684 OF 2011 -------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July 2011 ORDER A complaint, filed by the revision petitioner raising allegations of torture in police custody, as against the Sub Inspector of Police, Kottakkal, was dismissed by the learned Magistrate under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, holding that such complaint cannot be entertained without sanction as envisaged under Section 197 of the Code. Propriety, legality and correctness of that order is impeached in this revision. 2. Going through the order passed by the learned Magistrate and also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, it is seen, the complaint filed by the petitioner emanated from disputes between two bus owners over the timing of the buses of the aforesaid owners. One among the bus owners is the complainant. His complaint was that he was manhandled at a public road by the Sub Inspector and then taken to the police station and there also he was tortured and kept in illegal custody for two days. In respect of such criminal acts imputed, he filed the complaint to prosecute the Sub inspector of Police. Relying on “Viswambaran v State of Kerala” (2010(4) KLT 875), where some observations have been made that even in a case of torture of a person in police custody, it cannot be Crl.R.P No.1684/2011 - 2 - stated that it is not in discharge of his duty, the learned Magistrate formed a conclusion that without obtaining sanction, the prosecution of the police officer cannot be proceeded as he is protected under sub Section (2) of Section 197 of the Code. 3. To my query, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that though the incident giving rise to the complaint occurred on 04-09-2008, the complaint was presented before the court only on 06-01-2010. The reason for such inordinate delay is explained by the counsel, stating that the complainant was scared to approach the court so long as the concerned police officer continued as the SHO of the station. When such be the case, I find that a scrutiny of the challenge raised against the order by way of revision is not warranted. Section 17A of the Kerala Police Act provides adequate and efficacious remedy to the petitioner to approach the higher officials and even the Police Complaining Authority constituted under the statute if at all any highhanded act against the person of the accused was perpetrated by the police officer. He was afraid to approach the court of law to file a complaint against the proposed accused is not a ground for explaining the inordinate delay. When such be the case, I find that no interference with the order passed by the Magistrate is called for. Revision is dismissed. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge