IMPORTANT POINTS
Allegation of the writ petitioner against the 2nd respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, that a fine amount of Rs.3,000/-was imposed on the writ petitioner and that due to threat by the Sub Inspector of Police, his son-in-law came forward to pay the amount of Rs.3,000/-has not been substantiated. Thus, the District Police Chief, Thrissur (Rural) while sending a letter dated 25.05.2017 to the State Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram, has opined that this is not a fit case to grant sanction for prosecution. Accordingly, Government have issued G.O(Rt) No.2520/2017/HOME dated 26.09.2017.

JUDGMENT :

S.Manikumar, J.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 25.03.2019 made in W.P.(C) No.36995 of 2017, by which, writ court declined interference with G.O(Rt) No.2520/2017/HOME dated 26.09.2017, wherein the Government having found that there is no substance in the allegation of the writ petitioner/appellant, rejected his request for according sanction for prosecution against the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sri. Premananthakrishnan, respondent No.2, under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Facts leading to the appeal are that writ petitioner has preferred Exhibit-P1 complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Thrissur, under Section 190(i)(a) of the Cr.P.C alleging offences under Sections 115 and 116 of the Kerala Police Act and Sections 352 and 506(II) of the IPC. The petitioner has sought for a reference under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., for investigating into the allegations made against him or else take cognizance of the offences. Complaint has been registered as C.C. No.3995 of 2014.

3. The learned Magistrate directed the writ petitioner to secure necessary sanction in order to prosecute respondent No.2 therein. Writ petitioner has submitted Exhibit-P2 application to the Home Secretary, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram and Exhibit-P3 reminder to the said authority. Alleging inaction, the petitioner also filed W.P(C) No.886 of 2016 before this Court. Vide judgment dated 11.01.2016 made in the said writ petition, a learned Single Judge directed the 1st respondent therein to consider the application within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said judgment. Alleging non-compliance of the judgment dated 11.01.2016, Cont. Case (C) No.2275 of 2016 has been filed. Recording the submission that pursuant to the direction granted by this Court, hearing was scheduled on 20.01.2017 at 11.30 am, the contempt case was closed. Thereafter, Government have issued G.O (Rt) No.2520/2017/HOME dated 26.09.2017, which came to be challenged in W.P(C) No.36995 of 2017. The Government order reads thus:

“GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

Abstract

Home Department – Judgment dated 11/01/2016 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No.886/2016 filed by Sri. Ramakrishnan – complied with – Orders issued

HOME (A) DEPARTMENT

G.O(Rt) No.2520/2017/HOME Dated, Thiruvananthapuram, 26/06/2017

Read: The Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala filed by Sri. Ramakrishnan in WP(C) No.886/2016

ORDER

As per the judgment read above, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala directed Government to consider the request of the petitioner within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of the judgment.

(2) Accordingly, Sri. Ramakrishnan was heard on 21/01/2017. the contention of the applicant was that he met out injustice from the hands of Sri. Premananda Krishnan, the then SI of Anthikkad Police Station. As part of setting the dispute with the neighbour of the petitioner, the petitioner's son in law willfully came forward and agreed to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/-to petitioner's neighbour as a compensation and the SI compelled the petitioner's son-in-law to swear in the name of God to the effect that the petitioner will not proceed against the SI by filing cases. Afterwards, the petitioner preferred case against the SI for pursuing which prosecution sanction is necessary and he represented Government accordingly and has not got the same till date.

(3) Pursuant to this, Government directed the State Police Chief to furnish a detailed report in the matter. The State Police has reported that the enquiry officer, DySP, Irinjalakuda, in his enquiry report revealed that the petitioner's son in law willfully came forward and agreed to pay an amount of Rs.3000/-to Sri.Surendran towards compensation for his dead chicken which is alleged to have been occurred due to the act of the petitioner, while discussing the matter in presence of the Ward member of the panchayat. The Sub Inspector did not raise any demand for paying f