Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 8082
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Kauser Edappagath, J
Ajaynath Circle Inspector Of Police – Appellant
Versus
N.shajitha Beevi Advocate, W/o. Adv. Bijily Joseph – Respondent
OP(CRL.) NO. 263 OF 2015
For the Appellant : BY ADVS. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS SRI.K.SATHIYANANDAN PILLAY SRI.SHAKTHI PRAKASH HARIKRISHNAN M.S.(D/3672/2019)
For the Respondent: BY ADVS. SRI.DIPU JAMES S.SHANAVAS KHAN FOR ADDL.R3 AND R4 SRI.GEORGE MATHEW FOR R1 SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G S.INDU KALA G.NAMBIAR SMT.SREEJA V. SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Protection under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. applies to public servants for acts done in discharge of official duties, barring prosecution without prior sanction.
Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 197 - Kerala Police Act - Cognizance of offences against public servants - Petitioners, police officers, challenged the trial court's cognizance of offences without prior sanction under Section 197 - The trial court found that the petitioners were not acting in discharge of their duties, hence sanction not required - Court held that the acts were committed while discharging official duties, warranting protection under Section 197 - Cognizance taken without sanction is void. (Paras 7, 9, 25, 28)
(B) Public Servants - Protection against vexatious prosecution - Section 197 provides immunity to public servants for acts done in discharge of official duties, unless the act is unrelated to such duties. (Paras 9, 24)
(C) Official Capacity - Test for applicability of Section 197 - An act must have a reasonable connection to official duties to attract the protection under Section 197, even if it exceeds the necessary limits of duty. (Paras 11, 24)
JUDGMENT :
The petitioners are serving police officers in the Kerala Police. The 1st petitioner was working as a Circle Inspector of Police at Alappuzha North Police Station; the 2nd petitioner was working as a Circle Inspector of Police, Pulincunnu, Alappuzha, and the 3rd petitioner was working as a Civil Police Officer at Alappuzha North Police Station, at the time of the alleged incident. The 1st respondent is an Advocate by profession. The 3rd respondent is the husband, and the 4th respondent is the daughter of the 1st respondent.
2. On 29/12/2013, the Sub Inspector of Police, Alappuzha South police station registered Ext.P1 FIR against the 3rd respondent before the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court, Alappuzha (for short, the trial court) alleging offence punishable under Sections 294(b) of IPC and 117(E) of the Kerala Police Act (for short, the KP Act). The allegations in the FIR were that while the 3rd petitioner was discharging his official duty in connection with the beach festival, Alappuzha, at the main gate of the venue, the 3rd respondent came in his car and tried to park it in the VIP parking area causing obstacles to other vehicles. Thereupon, the 3rd petitioner requested the 3rd respondent to park the vehicle at the designated places at police ground. The 3rd respondent refused to obey his directions and openly abused him. Though the 3rd petitioner reminded him that he was only discharging his duty and, therefore, he was bound to obey his direction, the 3rd respondent verbally abused him again in public in front of the people assembled there to see the festival.
3. After twelve days of registration of Ext.P1 FIR, i.e., on 10/1/2014, the 1st respondent filed Ext.P2 private complaint against the petitioners before the trial court as CMP No.188/2014. The allegations in Ext.P2 private complaint are as follows:
4. The respondents, Nos.1, 3 and 4, together came to see the beach festival at Alappuzha on 29/12/2013 in their private car. When the 3rd respondent attempted to park the car in front of the beach park on the western side of the beach road in the car parking area at about 7.10 p.m., the 3rd petitioner, without any provocation, rushed to them and shouted to take the car from there. When the 3rd respondent replied that he was parking the car only in the parking area, the 3rd petitioner verbally abused him. It was recorded by the 3rd respondent on his mobile phone. The 3rd petitioner left the scene and immediately came back with the 1st and 2nd petitioners. The 1st petitioner snatched the mobile phone by force from the 3rd respondent using abusive words. The 2nd petitioner caught hold of the collar of the 3rd respondent and pushed him into the police vehicle by using excessive force. The 1st respondent, who tried to object to the forceful removal of the 3rd respondent, was taken into custody and forcefully pushed into the police vehicle. The 1st petitioner took hold of the hair of the 1st respondent while taking her into the police vehicle. When the police vehicle reached the police station, fellow advocates who reached the police station intervened in the matter and the petitioners returned the mobile phone and key of the car. The respondents 1, 3 and 4 sought medical treatment in the Alappuzha General Hospital. The petitioners destroyed the memory card from the mobile phone. Thus, the petitioners have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294(b), 339, 352, 354, 354B, 84, 120B, 204, 211, 166, 503, 509, 500 and 34 of IPC.
5. The trial court conducted an enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. The 1st respondent was examined as CW1. The doctor of the General Hospital, Alappuzha, who examined the respondents 1, 3 and 4, was examined as CW2. The wound certificates issued by her were marked as Exts.P1 to P3. The 3rd respondent was examined as CW3. Two independent witnesses were examined as CW4 and CW5. The 4th respondent was examined as CW6. After conducting enquiry, the trial court found that there is
