ORDER :

1. The present petitions are filed aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Attur, directing the official respondents to register the FIR on the basis of the complaint filed by the private respondent u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C.

2. The case of the petitioners, as is revealed from the averments made in the affidavit is that on 5.6.2018, at about 7.00 p.m. the private respondent appeared at the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, viz. the petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 29009/2018, in an inebriated state, in the two wheeler, driven in a very rash manner in a way of dashing against the 2nd petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 29141/2018 and dropping the vehicle down, the private respondent entered into a quarrel with the Head Constable and used unparliamentary and filthy language against the Head Constable and the other police personnel and tried to enter the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, which was warded off by the other police personnel on duty. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged against the act of the private respondent before the Attur Town Police Station based on which a case in Crime No. 280/2018 has been registered against the private respondent u/s 294 (b), 353, 506 (i) IPC and Section 4 (1)(j) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. It is the further averment of the petitioners that to wreak vengeance, the private respondent has lodged the complaint against the petitioners u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for registration of the case, which has been allowed by the court below directing registration of the case against the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petitions are filed to set aside the same.

3. The respective learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the act of the private respondent in entering the office of the petitioners and using abusive and filthy language against them, while the petitioners were discharging their official duties, resulted in the filing of the complaint against the private respondent. However, with a view to wriggle out of the said complaint, the present complaint has been preferred u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were discharging their official duties and it was the private respondent, who had barged into the office of the petitioners and conducted himself in an unruly manner, which resulted in the registration of the complaint. Therefore, the said act of the petitioners was in the course of discharge of their duties and, therefore, without a proper sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. no complaint is maintainable against the petitioners. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaint is barred u/s 53 of the Madras District Police Act, 1959, as the same has not been given within the prescribed period of three months. However, the court below has completely erred and omitted to consider the legal position with regard to entertaining the complaint and, therefore, in view of the bar as envisaged u/s 197 Cr.P.C. and the period of limitation u/s 53 of the Madras District Police Act, the order passed in Crl. M.P. No. 2084/2018 is wholly unsustainable and the same deserves to be set aside.

4. In support of his above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision in D. Devaraja vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain, 2020 (7) SCC 695.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent submitted that the issues relating to discharge of official duties warranting sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. and the limitation pleaded by the petitioners are triable issues, which cannot be decided at the initial stage, where the complaint is directed to be registered and, therefore, this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. shall not interfere with the order passed by the court below. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the private respondent that the allegations levelled against the petitioner