K.N. Phaneendra, J.

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. Petitioner sought for quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 792/2014 (PCR No. 131/2013) pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Kadur for the alleged offences under Sections504 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. The respondent herein, who is a practicing Advocate at Kadur lodged a private complaint in PCR No. 131/2013 making specific allegations in the complaint at paragraphs No. 3 and 4 that, on 2.9.2013, the complainant along with others had been to Ajjampura Police Station, where the petitioner was working as a Police Officer and requested to receive a complaint. But in that context, it is alleged that the petitioner not only refused to receive the complaint but abused the complainant with filthy language referring to his profession and also using other abusive words. When the complainant made a request not to abuse him and give him respect, but petitioner further intensified his abusive words and also assaulted him on his right eye and infact also damaged the mobile phone of the complainant and also infact he instructed his officials to assault the complainant. In this context, the complainant came out from the Police Station at 6.30 p.m. and went to the hospital, took treatment, along with the medical report, he lodged a private complaint before the Court making allegations in the above said manner and requesting the Court to take action for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 339, 341, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. On receipt of the said complaint, the learned Magistrate has registered a case and examined the complainant and also took cognizance for the offences under Sections504 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and infact passed a detailed order even with reference to requirement of 'sanction to prosecute the petitioner', at that stage, the Magistrate is of the opinion that, at that stage, sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., is not necessary, at page 12 of the order shows that. the learned Magistrate has relied upon a decision reported in 2005 Cri.L.J. 1160 in the case of Smt. Padmamma v. AVR Narsimha Rao, wherein, the Court held that "no sanction is required to prosecute Police Officer who beats the complainant when she went to him to lodge a complaint of theft."

3. Looking to the above said circumstances at the preliminary stages, though the learned Magistrate has held that the sanction at that time is not required, but it is still open to the petitioner herein to establish before the Court during relevant time that even if the alleged acts have been committed by him have been done during the course of his duty as a public servant and under the color of his office. If during the course of his evidence or at the time of recording of plea or framing of charges, if the Court is of the opinion that the sanction is required, the Court at any stage stop the proceedings and refer the complainant to obtain the sanction and to file the same before the Court. Further added to that, the sanction point can be agitated at any stage of the proceedings even during the course of his evidence. If the evidence appears before the Court that the act of the accused as under the color of his office while discharging public duty as such a public servant then also the Court can pass appropriate orders, even before pronouncing the judgment.

4. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances of the case, when the Court has exercised its discretion at the time of taking of cognizance that the act of the police officer on plain reading of the complaint does not fall under the exercise of his public duty or under color of his duty, this Court should not normally interfere with such an observation passed on facts. Otherwise, this Court has to interpret the allegations made and also give a finding with regard to pros and cons of the allegations made in the complaint, it virtually amounts to writing a judgment on