Protection under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is not applicable when the acts of a public servant do not have a reasonable connection to their official duties.

O R D E R

The revision petitioner, who was the Sub Inspector of Police, Nilambur Police Station, is the accused in C.C.No. 322 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur. The Calendar Case was registered based on a complaint filed by respondent No.2 alleging that on 28.07.2008, the revision petitioner committed the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 341 IPC.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the complaint against the accused are as follows:-

On 28.07.2008, the accused received a petition from one Smt. Daisy Mathai against the complainant. In the complaint, Smt. Daisy Mathai alleged that the complainant (respondent No.2) abused her in a public place. The accused summoned the complainant to the Police Station. He reached the Station at 4.30 pm. He was asked to wait till the lady arrived in the Station. Smt. Daisy Mathew came to the station along with her husband in the night. The accused called the complainant, Smt. Daisy Mathai and her husband to his cabin. The accused abused the complainant using filthy language. He also assaulted him. His sister who was employed in the Station as Woman Police Constable attempted to prevent the accused from physically ill-treating him.

3. The Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Nilambur, had registered Crime No.448/2008 on 28.07.2008 itself against the accused. The Dy.S.P. concerned investigated into the said crime and submitted a refer report under the caption “false case”.

4. Thereafter, the complainant filed a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences alleged.

5. In response to the summons, he appeared before the Court and raised a contention that the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the offences without the sanction of the Government as envisaged under Section 197 (1) of the Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate rejected the said contention as per order dated 06.01.2015 in CMP No.599 of 2009. This order is under challenge in this revision petition.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused, the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused submitted that as the accused was on official duty and discharging duties as a public servant, sanction under Section 197 was mandatory for taking cognizance. The learned counsel for the accused relied onRizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh v. Jammal Patel [ (2001) 5 SCC 7 ],Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das and another [ AIR 2006 SC 1599 ] and Moosa Vallikkadan v. State of Kerala [ 2010 (3) KLT 437 ] to support his contentions.

8. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the accused is not entitled to the protection contained in Section 197 (1) of the Cr.PC. The learned counsel submitted that there must be reasonable connection between the acts alleged and the discharge of official duty. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the expression ‘official duty’ is to be understood as an act in discharge of his duty. It is further submitted that the provision does not extend its protective cover to every acts or omission done by a public servant in service. The learned counsel submitted that ‘public order’ will not take all duties and responsibilities as in the case of ‘law and order’ which takes in all duties discharged by the Police officials concerned. The learned counsel for the complainant contended that application of Section 197 Cr.PC does not arise in this case as the accused was not charged with the maintenance of ‘public order’ at the relevant time. The learned counsel for the complainant relied onRam Manohar Lohia v. The State of Bihar and another [ AIR 1966 SC 740 ] andCentre for Public Interest Litigation and another v. Union of India [ (2005) 8 SCC 202 ] to fortify his contentions.

9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused submitted that in view of the n