JUDGMENT :

(Prayer : Petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in respect of the impugned order dated 10.01.2018 in Crl.M.P.No4682/2017 passed by the Human Rights Court/District Court at Thiruvannamalai and set aside the same.)

1. The matter is heard through "Video Conference".

2. The first respondent in Crl.M.P.No.4682 of 2017 is the revision petitioner herein.

3. This criminal revision case is filed challenging the order dated 10.01.2018, passed in Crl.M.P.No.4682/2017, by the Human Rights Court/District and Sessions Court at Thiruvannamalai, whereby, the petitioner herein was called for to face the trial for the alleged Human Rights violation.

4. The respondent herein preferred a complaint before the Human Rights Court/District Court, Thiruvannamalai, to take action against the revision petitioner herein for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 166 and 506(i) of IPC and in the said complaint, notice was ordered and the same is under challenge.

5. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above criminal revision case are as under:

5(i) One Samundeeswari has filed a suit in O.S.No.112/2014 before the learned District Munsif at Arni, Thiruvannamalai District, seeking permanent injunction and she has also filed an application in I.A.No.333/2014, against one V .Radhakrishnan, K.Selvaraj and the respondent herein/Krishnan, and in the said interlocutary application, ad interim injunction was granted in favour of the said T.Samundeeswari, which is undisputed and the said order is still in force.

5(ii) In view of the complaint given by one party viz., Savithri, W/o.Krishnan, against Sathasivam and Samoondeeswari, FIR in Crime No.764/2017 was registered on 28.12.2017.

5(iii). Pursuant to the said complaint, it appears that the revision petitioner herein, who is newly recruited as Deputy Superintendent of Police, went to the spot and examined the field. At that time, it is alleged that she had violated the human rights by supporting the other party, thus alleging so, the respondent herein lodged the complaint before the Human Rights Court, Thiruvannamalai as stated supra and the same is taken on file.

6. The cognizance taken by the Human Rights Court is under challenge, both on law and on facts, as well.

7. The learned counsel for revision petitioner contended that the cognizance taken by the learned Sessions Court (Special Court for Human Rights Violation) is not in accordance with Section 190 of Cr.P.C., and relied upon the following decisions :

(i) (2005) 1 LW (Crl) 139 [Dr.S.Sourubarani and another Vs. C.Selve],

(ii) (2007) 1 LW (Crl) 440 [K.Dhamodharan Vs. R.V.Narbabi],

(iii) (2018) 1 LW (Crl) 617 [1.Rev.Sister Flora Correspondent, St.Teresa Primary School, West Marianathapuram, Dindigul, 2. Arockia Marry Vs. S.Babiolo viancy].

8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further contended that in order to attract the offence under Section 166 of IPC, the public servant should have knowingly disobeyed any 'direction of law'. Besides, the revision petitioner appointed and working as Deputy Superintendent of Police and hence, she can be removed only by the order of Government, and thus, prior sanction for prosecution is necessary.

9. Further submitted that she only visited the property in connection with law and order issue, for which, the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., have already been referred to and she has not disobeyed any 'direction of law'. The petitioner is a Public Officer, was discharging her official duty and she has not committed any violation of law and further contend that the very cognizances was taken is not saved under Section 460(e) of Cr.P.C. but vitiated in view of the mandatory provision of Section 460(k) of Cr.P.C.

10. Heard, Ms. S.Sridevi, learned Legal-Aid-Counsel for the respondent. She has contended that though it is a civil dispute, the police officer went and interfered and supported one party and such an action of police of