R RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are accused in C.C.No.1435 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Punalur for offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 341, 342, 294(b) and 506 and 24 of the Indian Penal Code. PETITIONERS who are the Sub Inspector, Constable and Police Driver of Koluthupuzha Police Station filed C.M.P.No.2323 of 2011 before the learned Magistrate seeking their discharge under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") on the ground that cognizance is taken without getting sanction under Section 197 of the Code. Learned Magistrate rejected that contention and dismissed C.M.P.No.2323 of 2011 which is under challenge before this Court under Section 482 of the Code. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioners and the Public Prosecutor on the maintainability and sustainability of this petition under Section 482 of the Code.

(2.) A Division Bench of this Court in Prabhakaran v. Excise Circle Inspector (1992 (2) KLT 860) while considering whether an order framing charge rejecting the contention of the accused is interlocutory or not observed in paragraph 15 that framing of charge may or may not amount to interlocutory order as it depends upon facts of the case, the statute under which proceedings have been initiated, as also the nature of objections raised against it etc. If the objection or objections raised against the order framing charge are such that upholding such objection/objections would result in termination of the proceedings, then framing of charge cannot be regarded as merely interlocutory order for the purpose of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397(2) of the Code.