S. MADHUSUDAN RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. , for quashing the proceedings including the committal order in P. R. C. No. 2 of 1980 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrates Court, Narasannapeta. The petitioner is the 4th accused in the case.

( 2 ) THE facts, which led up to this petition, are as follows : Hanumanthu Annapurnamma, the first respondent herein, gave a report to the Village Munsif alleging that on 3-3-1979 her husband, Surya Prakasarao, was done to death that morning by Metta Delarao. Metta Kamesam and Chintada Sreeramulu. The Village Munsif in turn sent the report of Annapurnamma along with his report to the concerned Police Station at Kotabommali registered a case and investigated into the same. During investigation he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased on 4-3-1979. After the inquest he sent the dead body of Suryaprakasa Rao to the Taluk Hospital. Tekkali for post-mortem examination. The petitioner, who is the Civil Assistant Surgeon in charge of the Taluk Hospital, conducted post-mortem examination and issued a certificate. After completion of the investigation the police served a notice on Annapurnamma informing her that they did not find any valid ground for charge-sheeting the accused against whom she gave the report.

( 3 ) AFTER receiving the referred notice on 1-5-1979 Annapurnamma filed a complaint under Sections 302, 447, 197 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narasannapeta, Metta Dalarao, Metta Kameswam and Chintada Sreeramulu were impleaded as accused 1 to 3 and the petitioner was impleaded as the 4th accused. It was alleged in the complaint that while the accused 1 to 3 committed criminal trespass and murder, the 4th accused colluded with the accused 1 to 3 and deliberately omitted to mention in the post-mortem certificate an injury on the head of the deceased and further expressed an opinion that the death of Suryaprakasa Rao was due to coronary thrombosis. On receipt of the complaint the magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and held a preliminary enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P. C. After completing the preliminary enquiry he directed the issuance of summonses to all the four accused in the case.

( 4 ) AFTER appearing before the Magistrate the petitioner filed an application under M. P. No. 585 of 1980 in P. R. C. No. 2 of 1980 requesting the Court to drop the proceedings against him as the complainant did not obtain any sanction from the Government for his prosecution. It was urged that the petitioner is a public servant of the State Government and is entitled to the protection under Section 197 Cr. P. C. and is not removable from his office except by the Government and that the offences alleged against him are committed in the discharge of his official duties. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to the protection under Section 197 Cr. P. C. , and further being of the opinion that he had no powers to drop the proceedings in a preliminary register case involving offence exclusively triable by a Court of Session. The petitioner thereupon came up to this Court with this application for quashing the proceedings against him.

( 5 ) IT may be pointed out even at the outset that the view of the Magistrate that insofar as he took, cognizance of the offences exclusively triable by a Court of Session, it was not open to him to drop the proceedings but to commit the case to the Court of Session, is wholly erroneous and unsustainable. If the petitioner is really entitled to the protection under Section 197 Cr. P. C. , it would not be open to the Court to proceed against the petitioner in the face of the express prohibition contained in the Section. The provision prohibits cognizance and the Court has no jurisdiction at all to take cognizance of the offences mentioned in the Section except when there is a previous sanction of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document