T.CHANDRAN Vs. GANAPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the second defendant and first respondent the plaintiff in O.S.69/2004 on the file of Sub Court, Thrissur. Respondents filed the suit claiming damages for malicious prosecution against the petitioner and others consequent to his acquittal in S.C.73/1998 by Sessions Judge, Thrissur. Petitioner filed I.A.3232/2008 after the examination of Pws.1 and 2 in the suit, for hearing the preliminary issue on the maintainability of the suit as against him in view of the bar provided under sub section (3) of Section 64 of Kerala Police Act. Learned Sub Judge following the decision of the Apex Court in Unnikrishnan v. Alikutty (2000 (3) KLT 483) held that Section 64(3) of Kerala Police Act has no application as the act alleged against the petitioner was not done under the Act and found the suit maintainable under Ext.P4 order. The order is challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondents were heard.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondents relying on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Pathumma v. State of Kerala (2000(2) KLT 827 argued that the decision of the learned single Judge in Prabhas case (supra) was not followed by the Division Bench and as the investigation in the case was not conducted as provided under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989 as found by the Sessions Judge in the Sessions Case the act alleged against the petitioner cannot be an act done under the said Act and so Act does not come within the ambit of sub section (3) of Section 64 of Kerala Police Act and the suit is maintainable and there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Learned counsel also argued that as Pws. 1 and 2 were already examined, learned Sub Judge may be directed to dispose the suit expeditiously.