VIJAYAN Vs. SANALKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are accused Nos, 1 and 3 in C.C.No.440/99 pending before the C.J.M. Court, Kollam. They filed Crl. M.P. 6622/01 for dropping the proceedings as against them claiming protection under S.197(1) Cr.P.C. The above Crl.M.P. was dismissed by the court below. Aggrieved by the above order, petitioners have come up in revision challenging the above order and praying for an order dropping the proceedings pending against them.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the 1st respondent complainant and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) The 1st petitioner was the Circle Inspector and the 2nd petitioner was the Sub Inspector of Police, Chavara Police Station during the relevant period. The 1st respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioners and four other police officials alleging the commission of different offences including offences under S.307 and S.305 read with S.34 IPC. The case of the 1st respondent was that he along with his friends were travelling in a car bearing No. KL 2/6615 by about 3.30 p.m. on 5th May, 1997 from Puthenthura to Kollam and when they reached the Altharamoodu temple, they were taken to the Chavara Police Station by the accused and the complainant and others were brutally assaulted and tortured in the police station. The complaint was originally filed before the J.F.C.M. Court, Karunagappally and from there it was transferred to the C.J.M. Court as per the order of the Sessions Court in Crl. M.P. 2085/97. The C.J.M. conducted an enquiry and issued process against the accused for the offences under S.307 and 305 read with S.34 IPC. The petitioners challenged the proceedings before this Court in Crl.M.C. 5657/99 and the above Crl.M.C. was later withdrawn. Thereafter the accused filed Crl. M.P. 6622/2001 before the court below for dropping the proceeding contending that sanction under S.197(1) of Cr.P.C. was not obtained from the Government for proceeding against the accused who were police officials and the offences were alleged to have been committed in the discharge of their official duties. The court below after considering the nature of the allegations and the circumstances held that the sanction under S.197(1) Cr.P.C. was not necessary and accordingly the Crl.M.P. was dismissed. The above order is under challenge.