P.D. Rajan, J.

This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code') to quash Annexure E complaint pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Nedumangad by invoking inherent powers. The first respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 341 and 323 I.P.C. and under Section 3(1)VIII, IX, X and 3(2)VII of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1986. But the learned Magistrate took cognizance for offence punishable under Section 341, 323 I.P.C. alone. While petitioner was working as the Sub Inspector of Police, Nedumangad Police Station, the first respondent filed a complaint against him for an incident occurred during the discharge of his official duty. According to the petitioner proper sanction from the State Government is necessary for taking cognizance of the offence and if trial is proceeded without sanction, it is a mere abuse of the process of court.

2. The allegation of the first respondent before the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Nedumangad was that on 17.2.2007 at 6.15 pm, he was travelling in a motor cycle, when he reached at Kacheri junction in front of Nedumangad Police Station, petitioner rushed towards him calling obscene words, obstructed the motor cycle and thereafter assaulted him and he sustained injuries. Subsequently, he was arrested and produced before court and as per the direction of the learned Magistrate, he was treated in the Government Fort Hospital, Kottakkakam. For the aforesaid incident, first respondent filed Annexure E complaint before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Nedumangad. In the circumstance, petitioner approached this court to invoke the inherent jurisdiction.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Magistrate without a sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. Petitioner was admitted in a hospital at the relevant time, due to the act of the 1st respondent which is clear from Annexure C wound certificate and for that incident Annexure D FIR was registered against him. The allegations show that false and frivolous complaint was filed to wreck personal vengeance against him. Learned counsel relied on decisions reported in Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das and another (2006(4) SCC 584), Moosa Vallikkadan v. State of Kerala and another (2010(3) KLT 437), Balachandran and others v. State of Kerala and others (2012(3) KHC 328) and Rizvan Ahmed v. Jammal Patel (2001 KHC 636).

4. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that whether the petitioner was in discharge of his official duty is a matter of evidence. No duty certificate or any other related documents were produced along with this petition to show that he was discharging his official duty and charged with maintenance of public order at the relevant time. Without furnishing those details, petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of Section 197 Cr.P.C.

5. Before analysing the respective contentions, I wish to advert to the relevant section. Section 197 is an exception to the common rule that any person having knowledge of the commission of an offence may set the law in motion even though he is not personally affected. This section, as a matter of policy, impose limitations on the unfettered powers of the Magistrate under Section 190 Cr.P.C. In order to attract 197 Cr.P.C, it is necessary that accused person must have committed the offence while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. The words "any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty" under section 197(1) of the Code is very relevant. This protection is given to any person who is or was a Judge, or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with sanction of Government accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to