Sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C is essential for prosecuting public servants, and this necessity must be evaluated before charge framing.

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed, challenging the order dated 18.03.2014 in C.M.P No.970/2013.

2. Petitioners are the accused in a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent. 1st petitioner was working as a Circle Inspector of Kazhakootam Police Station and the 2nd petitioner was the Sub Inspector of Police of Kazhakootam Police Station, the 3rd petitioner was working as a Assistant Sub Inspector of PCR Kazhakoottam and 4th petitioner was the Grade Sub Inspector of Kazhakoottam PS. The petitioners were arrayed as an accused in Annexure A private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent.

After conducting preliminary enquiry, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and issue summons to the petitioners.

3. According to the complainant, on 17.02.2013 at 3.15 PM while he was riding his motorcycle along with his friend by name Sunil Kumar, he was not wearing a helmet. When he reached the Police check point where the 2nd respondent was checking vehicles, one Policeman asked him to stop the Motor Bike all of a sudden and 3rd petitioner caught hold the handle of the bike by which the bike accelerated and came to a stop. It is alleged that the accused assaulted the complainant. It is also alleged that from the Police Station also the accused attacked the complainant. Later, a crime was registered against the 2nd respondent under Sections 279, 332, 427 r/w Section 34 of IPC and also under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

He was produced before the learned Magistrate. Thereafter, he was released on bail. Subsequently he admitted at Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram on 29.02.2013 and treated there till 27.03.2013.

Hence, it is alleged that, the accused committed the offence.

4. It is contended by the petitioners that the prosecution against the petitioners is unsustainable because it is proceeded without getting sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petitioners challenge the order taking cognizance under Sections 324, 342 r/w Section 34 of IPC against the petitioners.

5. Heard the counsel for the revision petitioner and the counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

6. This Court perused the impugned order. There is nothing to show that at the applicability of Section 197 Cr.P.C. is considered by the learned Magistrate at the time of taking cognizance. I am of the considered opinion that this is a matter to be looked into by the learned Magistrate, before framing charge. There can be a direction to the learned Magistrate to consider the applicability of Cr.P.C. at the stage of framing charge. Moreover, the case is registered in the year 2014. Now almost 10 years elapsed after taking cognizance. There can be a direction to dispose the case itself, within a time frame. Since the petitioners were working as police officers, the petitioners can be allowed to file an exemption petition and if such an application is filed, the learned Magistrate will allow the same with a condition that the petitioners will appear when their presence is inevitable. At the stage of framing charge, the petitioners are free to file a discharge petition and the learned Magistrate will consider the same in accordance with law.

7. Therefore, This Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

(a) The petitioners are free to file a discharge petition at the appropriate stage before the jurisdictional Court, and if such a discharge petition is filed, the learned Magistrate will consider the same and also will consider the applicability of Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. in the facts and circumstances of this case.

(b) All the contentions raised by the revision petitioners are left open and the petitioners are free to agitate the same before the trial Court at the appropriate stage by filing the discharge petition.

(c) If the petitioners filed an application for exemption, the learned Magistrate will allow the same with a condition that they will appear before the Court when their presence is inevitable.

(d) Th