Prior sanction for prosecution under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is required only for acts done by a public servant in discharge of his official duties.

JUDGMENT

Lalitha Kanneganti, J. - This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') aggrieved by the order dated 30.09.2019 passed in C.F.R.No.3206 of 2019 by the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa whereby the complaint filed by the complainant under Sections 190 and 200 of Cr.P.C. praying the Court to take cognizance of the case for the offences punishable under Sections 347, 384, 389 and 506 read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C.') and for issuance of summons to the accused was allowed.

2. The facts of the case in brief is:

The complainant lodged a report before the Police alleging that some civil disputes arose among his family members after the death of his younger brother in respect of the properties. While so, in the month of October, 2018, the accused made a call from his official mobile No.9121100517 to the personal number of the complainant i.e. 9573597177 and threatened him that he would foist false case like murder, attempt to murder, rape against him and dowry harassment case against his family members if the entire property is not transferred in the name of the complainant's sister-in-law. When the complainant informed the accused that he would lodge a report against him, he along with others trespassed into his house and had an altercation with the complainant.

3. It was also averred in the complaint that on 30.11.2018 at about 10:00 A.M. when he came out from his house he was obstructed by his sister-in-law's brother-in-law and threatened by him that he would be killed if the entire property is not transferred in the name of Krishnaveni, the complainant's sister-in-law. Therefore, the complainant went to I Town Police Station, Kadapa to lodge a report with the accused. But, instead of registering the complaint, the accused abused him in filthy language and confined him a room for three hours by forcibly obtaining his signatures on some written papers. Later on the interference of S.P. of Kadapa District he was released and the report was registered as crime No.257 of 2018 against L.Madhusudhan Reddy for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 506 I.P.C.

4. As the complainant did not heed to the accused, he developed grudge and got lodged a false complaint by Krishnaveni as if the complainant trespassed in her house and outraged her modesty. The same was registered as crime No.258 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 354 and 506 I.P.C.

5. The Court below after considering the evidence and material placed before it, heard the complainant and passed a detailed order by taking cognizance of case against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 347, 384, 389 and 506 I.P.C. and ordered to issue summons to the accused. Assailing the same the accused is before this Court by way of this revision.

6. Heard Smt. M.Vidyavathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri Syed Kaleemulla, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below erred in interpreting the ambit of Section 197 Cr.P.C. to provide the Police personnel to discharge their official duties or purport to act in discharging their official duty, took the averments of the complaint as material and held that sanction is not necessary. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent No.2/complainant is accused in crime No.258 of 2018 and the complaint lodged therein is to be considered as statement under Section 162 Cr.P.C. Thus, taking cognizance of the case without sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is contrary to the law laid down in B.Sailesh vs. Union of India, (2018) 5 ALD 269 (DB)).

8. On the other hand the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor advanced arguments in support of the order impugned. It is argued that the acts done by th