IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

TH WEDNESDAY, THE 9 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 20TH MAGHA, 1943 CRL.MC NO. 5081 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1347/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, KANNUR PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

BIJU, AGED 40 YEARS, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAKKARAKKAL POLICE STATION, NOW FUNCTIONING AS SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CONTROL UNIT, PANOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.

P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)

SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.AJEESH K.SASI SRI.P.M.RAFIQ SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL SRI.V.C.SARATH SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN SMT.POOJA PANKAJ SRUTHY N. BHAT RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

1 JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS-I, KANNUR.

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

ADV.RANJIT GEORGE – PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

The petitioner, who was the Sub Inspector of Police of Chakkarakkal Police Station, has filed this Crl.M.C. challenging all further proceedings in Annexure-A complaint, which is pending as C.C.No.1347 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 166 and 187 IPC. The aforesaid proceedings were initiated as per Annexure-A complaint, which was filed by the Junior Superintendent, Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Kannur on the basis of authorization in this regard by the learned Magistrate concerned. The allegation against the petitioner is that, the non bailable warrant issued against the accused in STC.No. 1686/2015 was not executed by the petitioner. In such circumstances, alleging non-compliance of the order passed by the court, the aforesaid complaint was submitted. From Annexure-A complaint it is discernible that the same has been submitted under Section 195(1)(b)(1) read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Crl.M.C. is filed to quash all further proceedings in the said complaint.

2. Heard Sri.M.Revikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Ranjith George, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. The contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, Annexure-A complaint itself is not sustainable in law. It is pointed out by him that the aforesaid complaint is seen to have filed by invoking Section 195(1)(b)(1) of Cr.P.C., which is not applicable to a complaint in respect of the allegations contained therein. It is pointed out that, the complaint as contemplated in the aforesaid provisions is maintainable only in respect of offences punishable under Sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211 and 228, when such offences are alleged to have been committed in relation to any proceedings of any court. As far as Annexure-A complaint is concerned, offences alleged are under Sections 166 and 187 IPC and the same do not come under the offences mentioned in the aforesaid provision. In addition to that, it is also contended with respect to the offences under Section 166 IPC that, the complaint for the aforesaid offence also cannot be raised at the instance of the 1^st respondent herein, as the same is a non-cognizable offence and such complaint has to be submitted at the instance of the person injured therein. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the injured person or aggrieved person can only be the person who has sustained injury or was likely to sustain injury on account of disobedience on the part of the public servant in complying with the directions issued. In addition to that, the learned counsel raised a contention that, in this case, the complaint was filed by the Junior Superintendent of the court, on the basis of the authorization of the learned Magistrate concerned and the very same Magistrate is now considering the said complaint. This is also illegal, points out the learn