BABA @ A.M. ISMAIL Vs. MOTHILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is against the order of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Thiruppur, in C.C. No. 244 of 1994, discharging the respondent, who was arrayed as A9, along with 8 others, who were arrayed as A1 to A8, in the said C.C. The allegation against the respondent in the private complaint filed by the petitioner is that the petitioner was summoned by the respondent, who is the Sub -Inspector of Police, to the police station in connection with the complaint given by one Yakub and that the said action of the respondent is only with a view to enable the other accused to demolish the building, in which he was residing as a tenant. After the case was taken on file, summons were issued and all the accused appeared and the respondent filed a petition seeking discharge and the trial Magistrate discharged the respondent on three grounds and they are, (1) no sanction was obtained from the Government for prosecuting the respondent as he was a Sub -Inspector of Police, (2) the respondent himself has registered the complaint given by the petitioner in Crime No. 1948 of 1992 against four persons, who were arrayed as A1 to A4 in C.C. No. 244 of 1994 and therefore, he could not have acted in a mala fide manner, and (3) the allegations do not make out an offence under Section 166 IPC r/w Section 109 IPC, since there is no disobedience of law as the respondent did not disobey any direction of the law.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no sanction is required from the Government under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for prosecuting the respondent, as he was only a Sub -Inspector of Police and the learned Magistrate was not justified in discharging the respondent on the document, Ex.D -1, which is the first information report in Crime No.1948 of 1992 registered by the respondent on the complaint given by the petitioner, wherein A1 to A4 are shown as accused. The learned counsel further submits that by summoning the petitioner to the police station in connection with the complaint given by Yakub, the respondent has committed an offence under Section 166 IPC, and therefore, the learned Magistrate ought to have dismissed the petition.

(3.) IN the result, I find no merit in the revision and it is, accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, Crl. M.P. No. 8108 of 1999 is closed.