The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 197(1) Cr.P.C, providing protection to public servants from vexatious proceedings, and the court's emphasis on the unwarranted nature of the proceedings against the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to call for the records relating to the private complaint in C.C.No.89 of 2016, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Madurai and quash the same.)

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking orders to call for the records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.89 of 2019, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Madurai and quash the same.

2. The petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.89 of 2016, on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai. The respondent has filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., against three persons including the petitioner and after complying with the necessary formalities, the case was taken on file in C.C.No.89 of 2016, for the alleged offences under Sections 188, 294(b), 447, 448 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and the same is pending on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner, who is the first accused, is the police official and was the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, Theppakulam Police Station, Madurai. The main contention of the petitioner is that while the petitioner was discharging his official duty, the alleged occurrence had taken place and as such he has been protected under Section 197(1) Cr.P.C., and the complainant should have obtained sanction to prosecute the petitioner and that in the absence of the said sanction, the proceeding initiated against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.

4. It is necessary to refer Section 197(1) Cr.P.C., which is extracted hereunder:

“197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.

(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction-

(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;

(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government: 1 Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression" State Government" occurring therein, the expression" Central Government" were substituted.

5. No doubt, Section is intended to guard against vexatious proceedings against the Judges, Magistrates, Public Servants not removable from office except by or with the sanction of the Government. The words in the above Section “ not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government” refer to Public Servant and not to Judge or Magistrate. In the case of Public Servant, he must come within the category of Public Servants not removable from their office without the sanction of the Government and the above Section does not apply to Public Servants whom some lower authority has by Law or Rule or Order has been empowered to remove. To put it in other way, sanction under Section 197(1) Cr.P.C., is required, when the accused Public Servant can be removed from his office only by the Government or with the sanction of the Government.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.T.Virupakshappa V. C.Subash reported in AIR 2015 Supreme Court 2022, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:

“In our view, the above guidelines squarely apply in the case of the appe