HARIKUMAR Vs. SURESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under S. 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code') to quash Annexure E complaint pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Nedumangad by invoking inherent powers. The first respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner for offences punishable under S. 341 and 323 I.P.C. and under S. 3(1)(viii), (ix), (x) and 3(2)(viii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. But the learned Magistrate took cognizance for offence punishable under S. 341, 323 I.P.C. alone. While petitioner was working as the Sub Inspector of Police, Nedumangad Police Station, the first respondent filed a complaint against him for an incident occurred during the discharge of his official duty. According to the petitioner proper sanction from the State Government is necessary for taking cognizance of the offence and if trial is proceeded without sanction, it is a mere abuse of the process of court. The allegation of the first respondent before the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Nedumangad was that on 17.2.2007 at 6.15 p.m., he was travelling in a motor cycle, when he reached at Kacheri Junction in front of Nedumangad Police Station, petitioner rushed towards him calling obscene words, obstructed the motor cycle and thereafter assaulted him and he sustained injuries. Subsequently, he was arrested and produced before court and as per the direction of the learned Magistrate, he was treated in the Government Fort Hospital, Kottakkakam. For the aforesaid incident, first respondent filed Annexure E complaint before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Nedumangad. In the circumstance, petitioner approached this court to invoke the inherent jurisdiction.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Magistrate without a sanction under S. 197 Cr.P.C. Petitioner was admitted in a hospital at the relevant time, due to the act of the 1st respondent which is clear from Annexure C wound certificate and for that incident Annexure-D F.I.R. was registered against him. The allegations show that false and frivolous complaint was filed to wreck personal vengeance against him. Learned counsel relied on decisions Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das & Anr, 2006 4 SCC 584, Moosa Vallihkadan v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2010 3 KerLT 437, Balachandran & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2012 3 KerLT 106 and Rizvan Ahmed v. Jammal Patel, 2001 2 KerLT 77

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor contended that whether the petitioner was in discharge of his official duty is a matter of evidence. No duty certificate or any other related documents were produced along with this petition to show that he was discharging his official duty and charged with maintenance of public order at the relevant time. Without furnishing those details, petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of S. 197 Cr.P.C.