P P UNNIKRISHNAN Vs. PUTTIYOTTIL ALIKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in C. C. No. 427/95 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Perambra, have filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case to quash the entire proceedings. The petitioners are standing trial before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Perambra, for the offences punishable under S.323, 325, 330, 341, 342, 343, 348, 351 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of Annexure-A complaint filed by the first respondent. The allegation made against the petitioners is that the first petitioner while working as S.I. of Police, Perambra Police Station, and the second petitioner while working as Police Constable in the same Police Station, took the first respondent to Perambra Police Station at about 4 p.m. on 23-12-1994, wrongfully confined him in the police lock up and brutally manhandled and committed various offences alleged in the complaint and set him free on 27-12-1994 without registering any case against him nor producing him before the court. The first respondent also alleged that after his release, he was admitted in the Perambra Government Hospital and undergoing treatment as inpatient in the Perambra Government Hospital and in the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode and though he had given a statement before the police from the Government Hospital, Perambra, no action is taken by the police inspite of a complaint filed before the Superintendent of Police, Kozhikode (Rural).

(2.) The petitioners have filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case to quash the entire proceedings on the ground that the complaint is barred under S.64(3) of the Kerala Police Act, S.64 of the Police Act deals with the protection of a magistrate or police officer for anything done in good faith and the limitation for instituting proceedings against the said officer. S.6(3) of the Police Act reads as follows:

(3.) In this case it is clear that the offences are alleged to have committed in between 23-12-1994 and 27-12-1994. Annexure-A complaint is dated 1-9-1995 and Annexures B and C summons issued by the court to the petitioners are dated 13-11-1995. Therefore, it is clear that the complaint in this case is filed by the first respondent before the magistrate more than six months after the alleged offence committed by the petitioners. Hence the petitioners contended that since the complaint should have been filed within six months from the date of the alleged offences committed by the petitioners and the same is barred by time under S.64(3) of the Police Act and as such the learned Magistrate has committed manifest illegality in taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioners. The first respondent contended that the offence alleged in this case against the petitioners have nothing to do with the discharge of official duties by the petitioners as police officers and, therefore, they are not entitled to protection under S.64(3) of the Police Act. He also contended that the delay in filing the complaint is properly explained in the complaint and the learned Magistrate has ample jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing the complaint at any time before the conclusion of the trial in this case and in the interests of justice the magistrate can condone the delay even without a petition filed by the complainant to condone the delay in filing the complaint.