The main legal point established in the judgment is the premature nature of the petition and the interpretation of Sec.202 Cr.P.C and the requirement of sanction under Sec.197 Cr.P.C.

ORDER :

1. This petition has been filed under Sec.482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings in C.M.P.1117/2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Perumbavoor.

2. The 1st petitioner is a member of the Indian Administrative Service and has been working as Commissioner of Food Safety, as appointed by the 1st respondent. 5Th petitioner is a subordinate Officer of the 1st petitioner and is the Joint Commissioner appointed for the purpose of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. They are public servants. 2nd petitioner is the husband of the 1st petitioner and 3rd and 4th petitioners are the sister and sister-in-law respectively of the 1st petitioner. They have been arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crl.M.P.1117/2015 referred above and it has been forwarded to the 3rd respondent to conduct an inquiry under Sec.202 Cr.P.C. It has been alleged in the complaint that one year ago, the 2nd respondent/complainant preferred a complaint against the 5th petitioner before the Superior Authority alleging that he had colluded with a competitor of the 2nd respondent and was indulging in partisan/high-handedness tarnishing the name of the complainant/2nd respondent and its products and was alleged to be instructing its distributors and shop keepers from taking stock and selling the products of the complainant's Company. It is also alleged that the 5th petitioner informed the 2nd respondent that the 1st and 5th petitioners would destroy the name and good-will of the 2nd respondent's Company. The 1st petitioner issued an emergency ban on 3.9.2015 upon three products of the 2nd respondent's Company restraining the manufacture and sale of its products, as a result of which the complainant has to close down the Unit and emergency ban has been passed without any bona fides. Some allegations are also made against petitioners 2 to 4 and it is further alleged that the 2nd respondent had an average loss of Rs.20 Crores due to the unprofessional/unethical acts of petitioners 1 to 5 and a writ petition has been filed as W.P.C.30005/2015 before this Court.

3.Sworn statement of the second respondent/complainant was recorded in pursuance of Annexure-A1 complaint. Thereafter the learned Magistrate ordered inquiry under Sec.202 Cr.P.C to ascertain whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding. Accordingly SHO, Perumbavoor Police Station, was directed to conduct the inquiry and file report.

4. According to the petitioner, the entire procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate is an abuse of process of law and no offence as such is made out from the complaint. Though complaint was originally filed under Sec.156(3)Cr.P.C. for forwarding to the SHO, the learned Magistrate conducted enquiry and thereafter called for a report from the SHO. It is also vehemently contended that the entire proceedings against the 1st and 5th petitioners are vitiated for want of sanction under Sec.197 Cr.P.C.

5. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent on the other hand, would contend that the petitioners have not been arraigned as accused and though the learned Magistrate took the sworn statement of the complainant for further enquiry, it has been forwarded to the SHO U/S 202 CrPc and no process has been issued against the petitioners as accused and hence the Crl.M.C is premature and is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.

6. The points that emerges for consideration are (i) whether the petition filed is premature (ii) whether proceedings initiated against the petitioners 1&5 is bad for want of sanction under Sec.197 Cr.P.C.

7. Point:No.1 :

According to the learned Senior counsel for the 2nd respondent, the learned Magistrate has not taken cognizance of the offence against the petitioners and no process has been issued by the Magistrate under Sec.204Cr.P.C. and hence the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present petition for quashing the proceedings. It is also his contention that only when process has been issued by the Magistrate under Sec.204Cr.P.C. it can b