ORDER :

The petitioners, who are accused 1 to 4 and 5 in CC No.207/2001 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Mannarkkad, have filed this Crl.R.P. invoking Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the chargesheet dated 13.06.2022 framed against the revision petitioners.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that on 09.03.2001 at about 5 pm the 1st respondent was slapped and punched on different parts of the body by the 1st accused. Thereafter, other accused forcibly took the complainant to the police jeep. The 1st accused then kicked the complainant. The complainant was taken to police station and he was assaulted in the police station also. The accused have thereby committed offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 342, 355, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 IPC.

3. The petitioners state that Crime No.116/2001 was earlier registered under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 324 read with Section 149 IPC and under Section 3(1) of the PDPP Act against 25 persons for pelting stones on police driver PC.3960. For the attempt made by those persons to murder the 2nd petitioner, Crime No.117/2001 was registered.

4. The 1st petitioner took up the investigation of the above crimes and on investigation, it was revealed that the 1st respondent-complainant was involved in both the crimes. Therefore, on 09.03.2001 at 6 pm, the 1st respondent was arrested and he was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate's Court on 10.03.2001. The 1st respondent was remanded to Sub Jail till 24.03.2002. The Sessions Court granted bail to the 1st respondent on 23.03.2001.

5. The petitioners state that after three months of arrest, the 1st respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioners. The petitioners would submit that the said complaint was filed by the 1st respondent is on an afterthought, only to spite the petitioners who were discharging official duties as public servants.

6. The petitioners state that they have protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and they cannot be prosecuted without prior sanction. The petitioners therefore filed a petition before the Magistrate's Court invoking Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. seeking premature termination of the proceedings by way of discharge, on the ground of want of sanction. The said petition was dismissed as per order dated 06.10.2005. The petitioners challenged the said order dated 06.10.2005 filing Crl.R.P. No.175/2005 before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Palakkad. The revisional court allowed the Crl.R.P. and directed the Magistrate to reconsider the discharge petition adverting to the claim of the petitioners based on want of sanction.

7. The petitioners moved CMP No.7713/2015 before the Magistrate's Court seeking discharge on the ground of sanction under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. The court below ordered that the petition for discharge shall be considered after pre-charge evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. The petitioners would submit that the procedure adopted by the Magistrate is illegal. The Code of Criminal Procedure provides for discharge of an accused in a warrant trial proceedings instituted otherwise than on a police report at two stages – one under Section 245(2) i.e. without and before recording pre-charge evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. and under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. i.e. after recording pre-charge evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C.

8. In the petitioners' case, the cognizance itself would be barred for want of sanction. Therefore, the court below went wrong in delaying consideration of the plea for discharge on the ground of lack of sanction. The petitioners argued that when the alleged act on the part of the petitioners who are public servants was performed by them in discharge of or in purported discharge of official duty, the petitioners will have to be protected. The court below ought to have taken note of the fact that the 1st respondent is the prime accused in two crimes. The complaint of the 1st respondent was intended to harass poli