1. Annexure-A1 complaint in respect of C.C.No.615/2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Thamarassery, is under challenge. The petitioner is the accused before the court below, against whom cognizance has been taken by the court below for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 352, 323 and 324 IPC and Section 116(C) of the Kerala Police Act.

2. It is alleged that the complainant was called to the Police Station under the guise of recording his statement, and there he was tortured and harassed. Of course, it is a matter to be proved through evidence.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this is a case wherein sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. ought to have been obtained for taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision in Devinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab [(2016)12 SCC 87] wherein specific guidelines have been given by the Apex Court regarding the cases in which Section 197 Cr.P.C. has application. On going through the said guidelines, presently it cannot be said that this is a case wherein sanction ought to have been obtained. It has to be established during trial.

4. It is true that as per the decision in Devinder Singh (supra), question of sanction may arise at any stage of the proceedings. Normally, such question of sanction has to be considered at the pre-cognizance stage, and if sanction is found to be necessary, the courts do not take cognizance of the offences until order of sanction has been produced. That is not the end of the matter. Question of sanction can be raised at the time of framing of charges also, in case it is found that sanction is required, courts do not frame charges until sanction is produced. That is also not the end of the road.

5. Even during trial, the said question can be raised; but at that stage i.e., after the framing of charges, the accused cannot seek a discharge on the ground of want of sanction. At that stage, the accused can move only for canvassing an acquittal. In case the court feels that sanction is required and it has come out through evidence during trial that sanction is required, the court below can acquit the accused on the ground of want of sanction after dispensing with the examination of the remaining witnesses. That is also possible.

With liberty to the petitioner to have recourse to such steps, and with liberty to take up the very same contentions during any such stage as noted above before the court below, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of.