M.M. Sundresh, J.

1. The petitioner, who has been arrayed as A2 in Crime No. 391 of 2006 of Kadayanallur Police Station for the alleged offences under 120(b) r/w 343, 344, 348, 323, 355, 302, 201, 218 r/w 109 I.P.C. on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, has come forward to file this petition. Before analyzing the legal issue raised, it is imperative to go into the factual matrix surrounding the case.

2. The second respondent's husband was taken for interrogation by the Aralvoimozhi Police and Kadayanallur Police. He has been taken thereafter to Keeriparai Police Station under the guise of interrogation. He was tortured there and done away with. The body was disposed of thereafter.

3. The petitioner was not having any jurisdiction over the Keeriparai Police Station. On the other hand, he was working as Deputy Superintendent of Police at Nagercoil Town. Admittedly, the place of alleged occurrence viz., Keeriparai Police Station does not come within the jurisdiction of the petitioner.

4. The case original registered for man missing was referred to CBCID viz., respondent No. 1. On investigation, the petitioner/A2 was implicated along with other accused for resorting to physical torture. The Revenue Divisional Officer's enquiry was also ordered, which implicated all other accused except the petitioner. After the investigation was over, a charge sheet was laid arraying the petitioner as A2. The alleged occurrence was in the year 2005. The present petition has been filed in the year 2015, seeking to quash the proceedings pending before the Court from the year 2011 onwards.

5. This is the prosecution case in a nutshell.

Submissions of the Petitioner:

6. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made it very clear that he did not want to go into the alleged facts governing the case. His emphasize was only on the non-observation of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as no prior sanction was obtained before taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioner. It is contended by the learned counsel that as the petitioner was working as a public servant, in the absence of any prior sanction, the proceedings as against him is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel made reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das, AIR 2006 SC 1599 : (2006) 4 SCC 584.

Submissions of the Respondents:

7. Both the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that when on facts the petitioner did not discharge his official duty, there is no requirement for prior sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner was not acting in the discharge of his official duty. The statements given by the police officials under Section 164 Cr.P.C. clearly implicate the petitioner. As the allegations against the petitioner fall outside the domain of public duty, no sanction is required. Even otherwise the alleged offences are not in furtherance of the official duty. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been rendered on different facts. Even otherwise, the same has been taken note of in Choudhury Parveen Sultana v. State of West Bengal and Another, AIR 2009 SC 1404 : (2009) 3 SCC 398 : (2009) 2 MLJ (Crl) 361 (SC) and explained by holding that all acts done by a public servant in purporting discharge of his official duties cannot as a matter of course be brought under the protective umbrella of Section 197 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel also made reliance upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well.

(i) Urmila Devi v. Yudhvir Singh, JT-2013-14-262 : (2013) 15 SCC 624 and

(ii) Inspector of Police and Another v. Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam and Another in Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 2013 Batch cases dated 13.04.2015.

The Scope of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code:

8. To bring it under the f