P K JAGADEESH Vs. THANKAPPAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Sub Inspector of Police, faces allegations under Sections 424 and 427 I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken of those offences against him on the basis of a private complaint filed by the first respondent herein. The first respondent in that private complaint has alleged that a vehicle belonging to him was seized illegally by the petitioner on 7.10.2000 from the house of a friend of his. According to him, this act amounts to the offence punishable under Sections 424 and 427 I.P.C.

(2.) The petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the proceedings. In as much as the decision in K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala (1992 (1) KLT 1) stands overruled by the decision in Adalath Prasad v. Roopl al Jindal & ors. (AIR 2004 SC 4674), the petitioner cannot claim dropping of proceedings in a private complaint before the Magistrate and that is why the petitioner has rushed to this court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C.No. 870 of 2004

(3.) The petitioner relies on two grounds to claim premature termination of the proceedings against him. First of all he contends that no sanction has been obtained under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and the cognizance taken without such sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is per se illegal. Alternatively and additionally he contends that the allegations raised against him are vexatious and without any substance. Continuation of the prosecution against him amounts to abuse of process of the court for this reason also. The complaint is liable to be quashed, it is submitted.