IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SOPHY THOMAS, J.
Sivan Chodath, S/O Ramakrishnan - Appellant
Versus
Joshi, S/o.Michle - Respondent
Crl.MC No.2522 of 2019
Decided on : 07-01-2022
Criminal Procedural Code, 1973 - Section 482, Section 197, 197(2), 197(3) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 166, 352, 294(b), 506(i), 500 and 352 - Respondent/de facto complainant filed complaint against petitioner, alleging offences punishable under Sections 166, 352, 294(b), 506(i) and 500 of IPC - According to him, while he was returning from his agricultural land riding his motorcycle - Petitioner, who was Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station asked him to stop vehicle and since he could stop vehicle only at a distance, as it was in a steep and curvy road, petitioner abused him in filthy language and tried to assault him in front of public - De facto complainant, who was a reputed social worker and politician in that locality, was defamed by petitioner, in front of public and hence, he filed complaint
Findings of the Court :
Petitioner was discharging his official duty of vehicle checking. If a member of the Kerala Police has committed an offence while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty, the Court is precluded from taking cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the State Government as enjoined by Section 197 (2) of Cr.P.C. So the petitioner being a Policeman in service will be protected by Section 197(2) of Cr.P.C as the alleged offending act was committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty.
Result - Criminal Miscellaneous case allowed
ORDER :
The petitioner, who is the sole accused in C.C.No.1003 of 2017 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thaliparamba, has approached this Court to quash the impugned order taking cognizance and all consequential proceedings thereto initiated against the petitioner, invoking inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
2. The 1st respondent/de facto complainant filed Annexure-A3 complaint against the petitioner, alleging offences punishable under Sections 166, 352, 294(b), 506(i) and 500 of IPC. According to him, on 25.04.2016 at 4.55. p.m., while he was returning from his agricultural land riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-59-A/8658 through Chandanakkampara- Padankavala road, the petitioner, who was Sub Inspector of Police, Payyavoor Police Station, asked him to stop the vehicle and since he could stop the vehicle only at a distance, as it was in a steep and curvy road, the petitioner abused him in filthy language and tried to assault him in front of the public. The de facto complainant, who was a reputed social worker and politician in that locality, was defamed by the petitioner, in front of the public and hence, he filed the complaint.
3. Learned JFCM-I, Thaliparamba, after conducting enquiry, took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 294 (b) and 352 of IPC and issued summons against the petitioner/accused. Challenging that order, the petitioner has approached this Court.
4. The petitioner was Sub Inspector of Police, Payyavoor Police Station, on the date of the incident. According to him, along with other civil Police Officers, he was on patrol duty at Chandanakkampara- Padankavala road, engaged in vehicle checking. The 1st respondent/ de facto complainant came through that road riding his motorcycle without wearing a helmet. So, as part of his official duty, he asked him to stop the vehicle and to show the documents of the vehicle including his driving licence. He failed to show the documents or to pay the fine. Suddenly, the de facto complaint threw the key of his vehicle towards the petitioner, and shouted at him saying that he was an affluent political leader and former Panchayath President who could teach him a lesson. The vehicle was taken to the Police Station as no documents were produced by the de facto complainant for verification. So notice was issued by the petitioner asking the de facto complainant to produce the documents. Meanwhile, the de facto complainant got interim custody of the vehicle as per orders of JFCM-I, Thaliparamba.
5. According to the petitioner, the alleged offence occurred while discharging his official duty as the Sub Inspector of Police Payyavoor. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued process against him, without the required sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and so the proceedings are bad in law.
6. The de facto complainant would say that he was a reputed social worker, politician, former Panchayath President, etc., etc., and the petitioner shouted at him with abusive words and attempted to assault him defaming him in public which cannot be termed as part of his official duty, so as to claim protection of Section 197 (2) of Cr.P.C.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, 1st respondent/ de facto complainant, and also learned Public Prosecutor.
8. Government of Kerala issued a notification dated 06.12.1977 as S.R.O.No.1211/77 under Section 197(3) Cr.P.C, by which the provisions of sub-section (2) of the said section was directed to apply to all members of the Kerala State Police, charged with the maintenance of public order.
9. The Explanatory Note to the notification, S.R.O.No.1211/77 reads thus:
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.