2015 Supreme(Ker) 405
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
AKBAR, IPS – Petitioner
Versus
ANIL – Respondent
Criminal M.C. No. 5544 of 2013
Decided On : 25.5.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri. Anil K. Mohammed, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Sri. K.I. Abdul Rasheed, Additional D.G.P. and Sri. G. Sudheer, Advocate.
Headnote:
Kerala Police Act, 2011 - Section 113 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 197 - Private criminal complaint - Sanction of - Findings of - Held, Acts in question could be said to have been committed by the petitioner herein only while acting or purporting the act in discharge of his official duties - No doubt in such cases there will be allegations and counter allegations that the police officer had used abusive language against the private complainant, etc - But the issue as to whether sanction under S.197 Cr.P.C. or under S.113 of the Kerala Police Act is required or not should be adjudged not merely on the technicalities stated in the private criminal complaint, but on the overall context emerging from the fact situation in the case
1. The prayer in this Criminal Miscellaneous Case instituted under the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the invocation of the inherent powers conferred on this Court as per that provision, is for an order to set aside the impugned Annexure II order dated 24.10.2013 in Calendar Case, C.C. No. 1515 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Neyyattinkara, and to quash the impugned Annexure I private criminal complaint filed by the 1st respondent before the said Magistrate's court and all further proceedings arising therefrom.
2. It is averred that the petitioner is a Indian Police Service (IPS) officer, currently working as Superintendent of Police in the Crime Branch CID. That he has arrayed as accused in aforementioned impugned proceedings, which led to the institution of Calendar Case, C.C. No. 1515 of 2013 on the file of the said Magistrate's court registered for offences alleged under Secs.341, 323 and 294(b) of the IPC, on the basis of the impugned Annexure 1 private criminal complaint. It is stated that the gist of the factual allegations in the impugned criminal complaint is that on 25.5.2008, one Lawrence, a native of Marayamuttam, Vadakara, died under suspicious circumstances and his body was kept in the mortuary at Neyyattinkara Taluk Hospital and on the next day at 10.30 a.m. the accused (the petitioner herein) reached the Taluk hospital and directed the relatives of the deceased to take the dead body to the residence without conducting post-mortem examination. As the death was under suspicious circumstances, the 1st respondent herein (defacto complainant in Annexure 1) objected to the said act of the petitioner herein and that the petitioner caught hold of the shirt of the 1st respondent herein and had given him a blow on his chest and abused him in abusive words in public. The Magistrate court accepted Annexure 1 complaint to its file. It appears that the 1st respondent had submitted a representation dated 25.10.2008 before the State Government contending that the above said acts of the petitioner herein, though amount to criminal offences, require the sanction of the Government as envisaged under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in order to prosecute the petitioner and that the Government should grant him such sanction in terms of Section 197 of the Cr. P.C. so as to enable him to prosecute the petitioner herein. Alleging in-action on the part of the Government in taking a decision on his request, the 1st respondent approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (Civil), W.P. (C) No. 897 of 2009 seeking appropriate directions in the matter so as to enable him to secure sanction from the Government as per Section 197 of the Code. This Court as per judgment dated 9.1.2009 dismissed W.P. (C) No. 897 of 2009 on the ground that such sanction under Section 197 is not required on the factual allegations raised by the 1st respondent against the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein was arrayed as respondent No. 1 in W.P. (C) No. 897 of 2009. It appears that immediately after rendering the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 897 of 2009 by this Court on 9.1.2009, the 1st respondent herein had preferred the impugned Annexure 1 private criminal complaint on 18.2.2009 before the said Magistrate's court complaining of the above said offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein who was arrayed as respondent No. 1 in W.P. (C) No. 897 of 2009, preferred a Review Petition as R.P. No. 374 of 2009 praying that this Court's judgment dated 9.1.2009 rendered in W.P. (C) No. 897 of 2009 may be reviewed to the extent it is found that no sanction under Section 197 of the Cr. P.C. is required for prosecuting the petitioner herein. This Court was specifically alerted that the 1st respondent herein has preferred the impugned