Prior sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C is necessary to prosecute public servants acting in discharge of official duties, and a complaint filed after eight years is barred by limitation.

ORDER :

P. DHANABAL, J.

1. These Criminal Original Petitions have had been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No 94 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram.

2. The petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD) No.1704 of 2019 is arrayed as A1 and the petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD) No.3321 of 2019 are arrayed as A2 to A4 respectively in the above said C.C. No.94 of 2018

3. According to the petitioners the respondent herein filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram for taking cognizance for the offences under sections 120(B),166,195,323,339,340,357 and 506(i) of IPC. The learned Magistrate had taken cognizance against the petitioners on 20.04.2018 for the offences under Sections 294(b),325 and 352 of IPC and issued summons to the petitioners.

4. The petitioner /A1 was working as a Inspector of Police, Ambasamuthiram Police Station and the petitioners/A2 to A4 were working as Sub Inspector of Police, Head Constable and Constable respectively in the same police station during the year 2010. On 21.02.2010, a First Information Report in Crime No.43 of 2010 was registered as against the respondent and her daughter-in-law for the offences under Sections 294(b),323,307 and 506(ii) of IPC and subsequently charge sheet was laid and trial was conducted in S.C.No. 346 of 2016 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ambasamuthiram and the accused persons got acquitted. Further another case in Crime No. 42 of 2010 was registered against one Issac Pandian, who is the son of the respondent for the offences under Sections 294(b),323 and 506(i) of IPC, subsequently charge sheet was laid in C.C. No. 153 of 2010 and after full trial the accused was acquitted. Hence after eight years the respondent has chosen to prefer a private complaint with malafide intention. The allegation against the petitioners is that on 20.02.2010 the petitioners herein beaten the complainant and thereafter on 21.02.2010 the petitioners abused in filthy language and taken him to the police station and beaten him. Subsequently he and his son got acquitted on 09.01.2012 and 06.09.2016 from the said cases. The said private complaint is nothing but abuse of process of law. Further son of the defacto complainant is a history sheeted rowdy and these petitioners had discharged their official duty for that in the manner of threatening the present private complaint has been preferred with the malafide intention and hence the proceedings in C.C.No.94 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamuthiram is liable to be quashed.

5. No counter was filed by the respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the second respondent preferred complaint before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate has also taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 294(b),325 and 352 of IPC and issued summons to the petitioners. Even according to the complaint the alleged occurrence had taken place in the year 2010 and the petitioners who are police officers have discharged their duty and while acting as public servants the alleged occurrence had taken place and thereby prior sanction of the prosecution under Section 197 of Cr.P.C is necessary in this case and sanction was not granted. The defacto complainant and his son are also accused in criminal cases and thereafter the case against the defacto complainant ended in their favour and they were acquitted by the concerned courts. Taking advantage of the above acquittal the defacto complainant preferred a private complaint before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate without considering any materials had taken cognizance and issued summons to the petitioners. T