IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that the necessity for prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. must be evaluated in the context of the trial, and allegations of misconduct by public servants do not automatically preclude prosecution.

ORDER :

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the complaint in C.C.No.380 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Dhone, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 342 and 177 of Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”).

2) Petitioner herein is the accused. Respondent No.2 is the complainant. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Dhone alleging that himself, his mother and brothers filed a suit before the Junior Civil Judge's Court at Dhone on 22.09.2017 in O.S.No.443 of 2017 for permanent injunction and also filed an I.A.No.527 of 2017 for temporary injunction against one Golla Jonnagorla Kistanna and 2 others, wherein interim injunction was granted in his favour, on serving the said order to the opposite party, they appeared through counsel namely one M.Nagabhushan Reddy and took time for filing counter and the written statement in the said case, therefore, the said case was posted from 24.10.2017 to 29.11.2017. During pendency of the said interlocutory application, on 26.10.2017 the respondents therein highhandedly trespassed into the petition schedule property at 11:30 a.m., on receiving the said information, the complainant, his mother and brother went to their land and resisted the respondents in the said interlocutory application, then they beat the complainant, his mother and brother with sticks and threatened with dire consequences, then he, his mother and brother left the scene helplessly. On 27.10.2017 the complainant, his elder brother and his mother went to Dhone Rural Police Station at 12:00 noon to give complaint, but due to non availability of S.I. of Police the Police Constable sent them back by directing them to come after the S.I. returns to Police Station in the evening. Then in the evening the complainant, his elder brother and mother again went to Rural Police Dhone to give written complaint, then the SI of Police Rural Police Station received his complaint and beat him with hands and legs and detained him in police station from 8:00 p.m. on 27.10.2017 till he was produced by the Advocate Commissioner and Court clerk, who was entrusted with the search warrant by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Dhone, at about 8:00 pm on 30.10.2017. It is further alleged that, the petitioner prepared the FIR and remand report against the complainant in the police station for producing him before Magistrate by the Advocate Commissioner. The said act done by the petitioner accused would constitute offence punishable under Section 323 and 342 of I.P.C.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner arrested the complainant on 30.10.2017 by following due procedure in connection with Crime No.198 of 2017 lodged by one Golla Jonnagorla Shasikal and produced him before the Magistrate, such production of respondent No.2/complainant is in discharge of his duties, as such prior sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is necessary before taking cognizance of the offence against the accused, therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of Court. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgments of the various High Courts and the Supreme Court, which will be referred to at appropriate stage.

4) Learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant contended that the petitioner/accused bet the complainant, confined him in the police station for a period of 3 days i.e. from 08.00 p.m. on 27.10.2017 to 08.00 p.m. on 30.10.2017 and submitted the F.I.R. and remand report falsely to the Magistrate, Dhone as if he committed the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 342 of I.P.C. and as the said act done by the accused is not part of official duty discharged by him, the question of sanction order from the competent authority does not arise for taking cognizance against the accused. Therefore, the accused is liable to