Allowed

M.Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Jan 2018Crl.MC/182/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala entertained a petition challenging an order requiring prosecution sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for a criminal complaint against a public servant. The court quashed the lower order, directing the Magistrate to reconsider the nexus between the acts and official duties after hearing the parties.

What did the court decide?

Annexure E quashed and the Magistrate directed to reconsider the matter afresh after hearing the petitioner.

M.Prabhakaran Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 19TH POUSHA, 1939

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 182 of 2018

¶6

C.M.P NO. 1497/2017 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KANNUR DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT.

¶8

M.PRABHAKARAN., S/O KRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 43 YEARS, ATHAZHAKUNNU, KOTTALI POST, KANNUR DISTRICT.670005.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & ACCUSED.:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

2. SUBHASH A.,

¶13

AGED 31 YEARS, AYIPUZHA POST,

¶14

KANHIRANGAD POST, THALIPARAMBA, WORKING AS

¶15

CIVIL POLICE OFFICER, (CPO 6823) DISTRICT HEADQURTERS WING, KANNUR.670001.

¶16

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C. S. HRITHWIK

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

sdr/-

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 182 of 2018 -------------------------

¶20

APPENDIX ----------PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES -----------------------ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER RECORDED ON 3.3.2017 IN C.M.P NO.1497 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO.1, KANNUR. ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER DATED 17.3.2017. ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ABKAR , THE WITNESS RECORDED BY THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE ON 25.4.2017 ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF P.P RAVEENDRAN THE WITNESS RECORDED BY THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE ON 3.6.2017. ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.6.2017 IN C.M.P NO.1497 OF 2017 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO.1, KANNUR. RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES NIL ---------------------

¶21

/TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE

¶22

sdr/-

¶23

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶24

======================

¶25

Crl.M.C.No.182 of 2018

¶26

=======================

¶27

Dated this the 9^th day of January, 2018

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

What is under challenge is Annexure-E order passed

¶30

by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kannur. The order is as follows:

¶31

“On going through the complaint and on perusal of records I am satisfied that the offence is committed while the accused was in charge of his official duty. For producing prosecution sanction to 21.08.2017.”

¶32

The above order passed by the learned Magistrate is apparently erroneous. Merely because of the fact that the accused is a public servant and the offence has been committed even when he was in discharge of his official duty, the sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not always required. The court below ought to have considered all the other matters for inviting the application of Section 197 Cr.P.C. before passing such order. The question as to whether the acts allegedly committed by the accused had

¶33

Crl.M.C.No.182 of 2018

¶34

¶35

nexus with the discharge of his official duties has not been considered. The other questions have also to be considered. The learned Magistrate shall go through the decisions in

¶36

Devinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab through CBI [(2016) 12 SCC 87] and Amrutbhai Shambhubai Patel v. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel [2017 (1) KLT 707 (SC)]. Matters being so, Annexure-E is liable to be quashed.

¶37

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure-E is quashed. The learned Magistrate shall consider the said question afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and dispose of the matter in accordance with law.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

B.KEMAL PASHA JUDGE

¶40

DSV/9/1/18

¶41

//True Copy//

¶42

P.A.To Judge

M.Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muhammad Aslam Vs State of Kerala

Harikumar Vs the State of Kerala

Jaison.T.J Vs the Food Inspector

Teresa @ Ammini Sebastian Vs State of Kerala

Ashok Kumar.T.K Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Varghese Vs P.K. Sasi