The government must issue a speaking order when rejecting applications for sanction to prosecute, ensuring that all contentions are duly considered.

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs :

“a. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate order writ or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P5 order passed by the 1^st respondent and quash the same.

b. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, direction or orders directing the 1^st respondent to grant sanction under section 197 of CrPC to the petitioner to prosecute the respondents 3 to 5.

c. Issue any such other Writ, Direction or Orders, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” [SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5 order passed by the 1^st respondent rejecting an application for sanction to prosecute respondents 3 to 5 under Section 197 Cr.P.C. Petitioner is the defacto complainant in C.C. No.862/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakada and the respondents herein are the accused in the above case. Respondents 3 to 5 are the police officers. The offences alleged in the above case are under Sections 323 , 452, 426, 383, 384, 340, 191, 193 & 434 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860. C.C. No.862/2013 is originated based on a private complaint filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakada.

3. The main allegation raised by the petitioner is that, on 17.04.2002 the 1^st , 2^nd and 3^rd accused persons trespassed into the jewellery store of the petitioner and took him. It is alleged that the accused persons seized 400 grams of gold from the jewellery store as thondy in connection with a series of crimes and arrayed him as an accused in a case and on later stage he is removed from accused column and cited as a witness. It is the case of the petitioner that, in order to recover the gold, the police used force against the petitioner and they brutally manhandled him. It is also alleged that the seized gold was produced before the Court in 10 cases. It is submitted that, on 19.05.2020 the petitioner filed an application before the 1^st respondent for getting sanction for prosecuting the accused persons in the above case. It is also submitted that the petitioner filed another application before the 1st respondent on 10.01.2020 as evident by Ext.P2. In the meanwhile, the accused persons filed a discharge petition in C.C. No.862/2013 as evident by Ext.P3. Therefore, the petitioner filed O.P.(Crl.) No.165/2020 for staying the further proceedings in C.C. No.862/2013 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Katakada till the disposal of Ext.P2 application, and this Court stayed further proceedings before the trial court as evident by Ext.P4 order. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent passed an order rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for grant of sanction as evident by Ext.P5.

Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P5 is not a speaking order, and the contention of the petitioner is not considered by the 1^st respondent while passing Ext.P5 order. 6. The counsel appearing for the party respondents argued the matter in detail, and submitted that it is a false case foisted against the party respondents. The intention of the petitioner is only to harass the party respondents. The counsel also relied on the constitutional Bench decision of the Apex Court in Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari and Others [1956 KHC 365] and submitted that, whether the sanction is to be granted or not is a matter to be decided by the Government. It is also submitted that the court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the orde