Acts of illegal detention and evidence fabrication by a public servant do not require sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. for prosecution.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner being accused No.2 in CC No.3461 of 2012 (PCR No.456 of 2010) on the file of the learned I Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Tumakuru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for short), registered for the offences punishable under Sections 166 , 177, 182, 203, 220, 424, 483, 486 and 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'), is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him and to set aside the order dated 25.11.2015 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.182 of 2012 on the file of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court' for short), whereunder the revision petition was allowed by setting aside the order dated 24.07.2012 passed by the Trial Court in not taking cognizance against the petitioner - accused No.2.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent Nos.2 to 4 as complainant Nos.1 to 3 have filed PCR No.456 of 2010 before the Trial Court against the accused alleging commission of offences as stated above. It is the contention of the complainants that complainant No.1 is running business under the name and style as Shiva Enterprises and obtained trade license from Dodda Naravangala Village and indulged in production of soaps and allied products. He applied to accused No.1 for grant of trademark of 'Anu'. Since the trademark under the name 'Anu' was already registered, complainant No.1 requested to grant the trademark as 'Sri Anu'. Complainant Nos.2 and 3 are the relatives of complainant No.1. On 05.08.2010, when complainant No.1 had been to Arasikere with some work, accused Nos.2 and 3 came near Shiva Enterprises and started alleging that the complainants are manufacturing soaps under the trademark as 'Anu' and the complaint came to be lodged. Accused Nos.2 and 3 abused complainant Nos.2 and 3 in filthy language and registered PCR No.456 of 2010 for the offences as stated above.

3. It is alleged that even though complainant Nos.2 and 3 were apprehended and detained in custody, they were not produced before the learned Magistrate for two days. Accused Nos.2 and 3 have seized 464 soap boxes from Shiva Enterprises, but shown the seizure as only 70 soap boxes in PF. When the highhanded acts of accused Nos.2 and 3 were questioned by the complainants, they abused the complainants in filthy language and gave life threat and thereby, a false complaint came to be registered.

4. The learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainants and taken cognizance against accused Nos.1 and 4 and discharged accused Nos.2 and 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the complainants have preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.182 of 2012 before the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, which came to be allowed vide order dated 25.11.2015. Accordingly, cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate against accused Nso.1 to 4 for the above said offences. Being aggrieved by the order taking cognizance and allowing the criminal revision petition, accused No.2 is before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.

5. Heard Sri S Shivananda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 is absent. There is no representation. Hence, his arguments his taken as NIL. Perused the materials on record.

6. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

"Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?"

My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following"

REASONS

7. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for petitioner - accused No.2 is to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him, as the petitioner was a public servant working as Sub Ins