IMPORTANT POINT
Protection under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. applies to public servants for acts done in discharge of official duties, barring prosecution without prior sanction.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners are serving police officers in the Kerala Police. The 1 ^st petitioner was working as a Circle Inspector of Police at Alappuzha North Police Station; the 2 ^nd petitioner was working as a Circle Inspector of Police, Pulincunnu, Alappuzha, and the 3 ^rd petitioner was working as a Civil Police Officer at Alappuzha North Police Station, at the time of the alleged incident. The 1 ^st respondent is an Advocate by profession. The 3 ^rd respondent is the husband, and the 4 ^th respondent is the daughter of the 1 ^st respondent.

2. On 29/12/2013, the Sub Inspector of Police, Alappuzha South police station registered Ext.P1 FIR against the 3 ^rd respondent before the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court, Alappuzha (for short, the trial court) alleging offence punishable under Sections 294(b) of IPC and 117(E) of the Kerala Police Act (for short, the KP Act). The allegations in the FIR were that while the 3 ^rd petitioner was discharging his official duty in connection with the beach festival, Alappuzha, at the main gate of the venue, the 3 ^rd respondent came in his car and tried to park it in the VIP parking area causing obstacles to other vehicles. Thereupon, the 3 ^rd petitioner requested the 3 ^rd respondent to park the vehicle at the designated places at police ground. The 3 ^rd respondent refused to obey his directions and openly abused him. Though the 3 ^rd petitioner reminded him that he was only discharging his duty and, therefore, he was bound to obey his direction, the 3 ^rd respondent verbally abused him again in public in front of the people assembled there to see the festival.

3. After twelve days of registration of Ext.P1 FIR, i.e., on 10/1/2014, the 1 ^st respondent filed Ext.P2 private complaint against the petitioners before the trial court as CMP No.188/2014. The allegations in Ext.P2 private complaint are as follows:

4. The respondents, Nos.1, 3 and 4, together came to see the beach festival at Alappuzha on 29/12/2013 in their private car. When the 3 ^rd respondent attempted to park the car in front of the beach park on the western side of the beach road in the car parking area at about 7.10 p.m., the 3 ^rd petitioner, without any provocation, rushed to them and shouted to take the car from there. When the 3 ^rd respondent replied that he was parking the car only in the parking area, the 3 ^rd petitioner verbally abused him. It was recorded by the 3 ^rd respondent on his mobile phone. The 3 ^rd petitioner left the scene and immediately came back with the 1 ^st and 2 ^nd petitioners. The 1 ^st petitioner snatched the mobile phone by force from the 3 ^rd respondent using abusive words. The 2 ^nd petitioner caught hold of the collar of the 3rd respondent and pushed him into the police vehicle by using excessive force. The 1 ^st respondent, who tried to object to the forceful removal of the 3 ^rd respondent, was taken into custody and forcefully pushed into the police vehicle. The 1 ^st petitioner took hold of the hair of the 1 ^st respondent while taking her into the police vehicle. When the police vehicle reached the police station, fellow advocates who reached the police station intervened in the matter and the petitioners returned the mobile phone and key of the car. The respondents 1, 3 and 4 sought medical treatment in the Alappuzha General Hospital. The petitioners destroyed the memory card from the mobile phone. Thus, the petitioners have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294(b), 339, 352, 354, 354B, 84, 120B, 204, 211, 166, 503, 509, 500 and 34 of IPC.

5. The trial court conducted an enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. The 1 ^st respondent was examined as CW1. The doctor of the General Hospital, Alappuzha, who examined the respondents 1, 3 and 4, was examined as CW2. The wound certificates issued by her were marked as Exts.P1 to P3. The 3 ^rd respondent was examined as CW3. Two independent witnesses were examined as CW4 and CW5. The