The necessity of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C for public servants engaged in alleged official misconduct is affirmed.

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.1032 of 2014 pending on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Tirur. The case originated from Annexure 1 complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein. The allegations in the complaint are to the following effect;

On 22.08.2010, at about 10:30 p.m, police party consisting of the Circle Inspector of Police, Valanchery and the petitioner, then a Sub Inspector, arrested and whisked away the 1st respondent from his house. While he was being taken to the police station in the jeep, the petitioner assaulted the 1st respondent by beating and hitting him on the face and chest. On reaching the Police Station, the 1st respondent was put inside the lock up. Later, after the Circle Inspector left the Station, the petitioner, with the aid of other police men, subjected the 1st respondent to physical torture by hitting on his body, beating on the feet with a ‘lathi’ and kicking on his midriff. The 1st respondent fell unconscious after some time and had to be taken to the Government Hospital, Malappuram, and from there, to the Orthopedic Department in the Manjeri District Hospital. According to the 1st respondent, he was subjected to custodial torture by the petitioner at the instance of his mother-in-law due to her animosity by reason of the matrimonial disputes between the 1st respondent and his wife.

2. On receipt of the complaint, the learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and two witnesses as part of enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C and took cognizance of the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, and 342 of IPC. That order was challenged by the petitioner in Crl.M.C No.3728 of 2015, primarily on the ground that cognizance taken without sanction under Section 197 (1) of the Cr.P.C is illegal. This Court, by Annexure A4 order, allowed the Crl.M.C, set aside the order taking cognizance and directed the Magistrate to examine the question whether previous sanction is necessary for prosecuting the petitioner. The impugned Annexure A2 order is issued in purported compliance of the direction contained in Annexure A4.

3. Heard Adv.Sulfia M.A. for the petitioner, Adv.Hemalatha for the 1st respondent and Public Prosecutor Vipin Narayanan for the State.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations in Annexure 1 complaint are patently false and ill motivated. The 1st respondent, a history sheeter involved in various crimes, was arrested on 23.08.2010 in connection with Crime No.276 of 2010 registered at the Kuttippuram Police Station, on the allegation of having abused and threatened the Circle Inspector of Police for arresting and remanding the 1st respondent in connection with another crime (Crime No.161 of 2010) registered at the Kuttippuram Police Station. Annexure 1 complaint is filed as a counter blast to the crimes registered against the 1st respondent and to bring pressure upon the policemen. The fact that the 1st respondent had not complained about physical harassment when produced before the Magistrate immediately after his arrest clearly shows that the allegations are false. The minor injuries noted in the Wound Certificate also indicate that the 1st respondent was not subjected to physical torture.

5. Learned Counsel contended that even if the allegations are taken in their face value, the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offences, in the absence of sanction under Section 197 (1) Cr.P.C , the alleged acts having been done in the discharge of petitioner’s official duty. Placing reliance on the decision inAjaynath v. N. Shajitha Beevi [ 2025 KHC OnLine 295 ], it is contended that sanction is mandatory if there is reasonable connection between the alleged offensive conduct and the petitioner’s official duties.

6. Finally it is contended that, while setting aside the earlier order taking cognizance as per Annexure A4, this Court had d