J.B. Koshy, J.

This Original Petition is filed to quash Ext. P5 order refusing sanction to prosecute second and third respondents, namely, Superintendent of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police respectively. Petitioner is a practising advocate. There is some matrimonial differences between the petitioner and his wife after the birth of a male child. Petitioner along with his father filed a petition before the second respondent Superintendent of Police alleging apprehension of their life in the hands of the relatives of the petitioner's wife. Instead of filing the petition to the local police. it was filed before the Superintendent of Police and it is stated in the counter affidavit that father and son requested intervention of the second respondent for a settlement of matrimonial dispute and they did not press for registering a crime. The second respondent forwarded the petition to the third respondent Deputy Superintendent of Police and he, in turn, forwarded the same to the Circle Inspector of Police, Vakathanam and a case was registered as Crime No: 384/98 under Ss.448, 506(ii) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code on 9.12.1998 in Kottyam East Police Stateion after a lapse of 29 days based on a petition dated 10.11.1998.

2. Crime No: 369/98 was registered at the instance of the wife of the petitioner under Ss.498-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the Police on 2.12.1998 against the petitioner and his parents. According to the petitioner, since the complaint of the petitioner was registered subsequently, serious difficulties have caused to him. In the above circumstances, petitioner wants to prosecute second and third respondents for offences under Ss.166 and 34 IPC for having violated the mandatory provisions contained in S.154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since respondents 2 and 3 are public servants, petitioner approached the Government under S.197(i)(b) of Cr. P.C. for sanction to prosecute them. The above application for sanction for prosecution was rejected by Ext. P5 which is a one-line order which merely states that the application does not merit any consideration. According to the petitioner, there is no application of mind and an order without stating any reasons for the order is violative of the principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that it is not enough that a statutory authority passes an order and justification of the same is made in the counter affidavit. Grounds for rejecting the petition should be stated in the order itself. Reasons cannot be suppllanted by filing a counter affidavit when correctness of the order is challenged.

3. Petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Mohlnder Singh Gill and Ann v. Chief Election Commissioner and Ors. (AIR 1978 SC 851) and other cases to support his point. It is also submitted that delay caused by the police in registering the case will spoil the case and police was bound to register the case as held by the Division Bench in Joseph Thomas v. Sabu George (1998 (1) KLT 126). Therefore, it is contended that action of the Superintendent of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police was aimed at spoiling his case and sanction for prosecution of respondents 2 and 3 for offence under S.166 and 34 IPC should have been granted. Since Ext. P5 is not a speaking order, petitioner wants to quash Ext. P5 order and to direct the first respondent to pass a revised order in his petition for sanction.

4. It can be seen that the alleged incident in the complaint filed by the petitioner is said to have been occurred on 4.11.1998. He did not intimate the nearest police station regarding the same immediately. But, he took one week's time to file a complaint before the second respondent Superintendent of Police. Under S.154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence even if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station it shall be reduced to writing by him and it s