ORDER :

G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.

1. Both petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in S.T.C. No. 1109 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Viruveedu Police Station, Saptur alleged that he was illegally taken into custody by the petitioners herein and they have registered a case against the respondent in Crime No. 139 of 2017, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 353 and 506(ii) IPC. The respondent was taken into the hospital for the injuries sustained by the petitioners. The Doctor gave a report 'no external injuries'. Thereafter, the respondent was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai and the learned Magistrate remanded the accused to Judicial custody. The Inspector of Police conducted an enquiry and closed the same as 'mistake of fact'. Thereafter, the respondent filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai against the petitioners and other two police officials and the same has been taken cognizance in S.T.C. No. 1109 of 2018.

3. The case of the prosecution is that one Murugalakshmi, who is the wife of Nagaraj, gave a complaint stating that her two sovereign gold chain was stolen and a case has been registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Saptur, in Crime No. 144 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Section 380 IPC. Subsequently, they arrested one Ramaraj @ Puli son of Ramakrishnan. On his confession, it was found that the stolen jewels were pledged for the loan to one Sathis Kumar and the said Sathiskumar working in ADR Enterprises (gold loan pawn store) and he was enquired by the police officials. The shop owner, namely, Arun Jothi called his brother, namely the respondent. On the enquiry, the police officials were obstructed by the respondent and also threatened him with deadly weapons with dire consequences. Therefore, on the complaint, the Inspector of Police viruveddu Police Station registered the case in Crime No. 139 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 353 and 506(ii) IPC. Thereafter, the respondent was also arrested and remanded to judicial custody, while arresting the respondent the concerned police have followed all the procedure as contemplated under the criminal procedure code.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are no way connected with the offence alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the offence under Sections 341, 324, 323 and 294(b) are not at all attracted as against the petitioners, since there are no ingredients to attract those offences. He further submitted that the petitioners are being the government servants, without any sanction obtained by the respondent prosecuted the petitioners for the above said offence. The Section 197(1) of Cr.P.C. is clearly directed the petitioners and as such without sanction the entire proceedings has been initiated and as such it is liable to be set aside.

5. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment in 1987 SC 722 and unreported the judgment in Crl.O.P. No. 16671 of 2011, dated 06.03.2019 and also Crl.O.P. No. 14744 of 2012, dated 19.12.2017.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there are specific allegations as against the petitioners to attract the offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC/. He farther submitted that admittedly the petitioners are Sub Inspector of Police and Special Sub Inspector of Police. Therefore, the immunity under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. are not applicable to the petitioners. Therefore, the sanction is absolutely not necessary to prosecute as against the petitioners.

The learned Magistrate have rightly taken cognizance as against the petitioners without any sanction. He also relied upon the judgments in Pichai Pillai and Ors. vs. Balasundara Mudaly an