H BASAVAIAH Vs. H G KRISHNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions are directed against two orders made by the Sessions Judge, Bangalore in CrRP. Nos.11 and 8 of 1972. The said petitions had been preferred by Krishnappa and his brother Subbaiah against the dismissal of their complaints in CC. No.2041/1971 and CR. No.6| 1972 made by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Second Court) Bangalore.

(2.) The petitioners herein are Police Officers. The complaint of the respondent is that they have committed offences under Ss.345, 323, 355, 384 and 324 IPC. In CC. No.2041/1971 the accused appeared in response to summons issued, after the case was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate. In the other case, Crime No.6/1972 the accused appeared even before such summons were issued. In both cases, a contention was taken that the complaints were vitiated on account of want of sanction in accordance with S.170 of the Mysore Police Act. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion, that such sanction was necessary and consequently dismissed the complaints purporting to act in accordance with S.203 CrPC. It is relevant to note that the allegations in both the complaints were common and related to one and the same incident and one of the accused was common to both.The complainants thereupon took the matter up in separate revision petitions, as mentioned above, before the learned Sessions Judge of Bangalore. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion, in substance, that the dismissal of the complaints was premature and the matter required a further enquiry. He therefore remitted the matters to the learned Magistrate for further enquiry purporting to exercise the power conferred under S.436 CrPC. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioners have approached this Court.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioners, only one contention has been urged. It is that the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to interfere with the orders of the learned Magistrate while purporting to act under S.436, CrPC. The contention is that having regard to the true scope and effect of Ss.436. 203, 204(3) and 202 CrPC., it would be clear that the learned Sessions Judge's jurisdiction under S.436 CrPC is restricted and it would not take within its ambit a dismissal of a complaint for want of sanction under S.170 of the Mysore Police Act. In support of this submission, the learned Counsel placed reliance on two decisions; Tarlok Nath v. Emperor, AIR. 1947 Pesh. 58. and Thimmaiah v. Narasappa, AIR. 1955 Mys. 113.