Baba @ A.M. Ismail vs Mothilal

N. Dhinakar, J.—This revision is against the order of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Thiruppur, in C.C. No. 244 of 1994, discharging the respondent, who was arrayed as A9, along with 8 others, who were arrayed as A1 to A8, in the said C.C. The allegation against the respondent in the private complaint filed by the petitioner is that the petitioner was summoned by the respondent, who is the Sub-Inspector of Police, to the police station in connection with the complaint given by one Yakub and that the said action of the respondent is only with a view to enable the other accused to demolish the building, in which he was residing as a tenant. After the case was taken on file, summons were issued and all the accused appeared and the respondent filed a petition seeking discharge and the trial Magistrate discharged the respondent on three grounds and they are, (1) no sanction was obtained from the Government for prosecuting the respondent as he was a Sub-Inspector of Police, (2) the respondent himself has registered the complaint given by the petitioner in Crime No. 1948 of 1992 against four persons, who were arrayed as A1 to A4 in C.C. No. 244 of 1994 and therefore, he could not have acted in a mala fide manner, and (3) the allegations do not make out an offence u/s 166 IPC r/w Section 109 IPC, since there is no disobedience of law as the respondent did not disobey any direction of the law.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no sanction is required from the Government u/s 197 Cr.P.C. for prosecuting the respondent, as he was only a Sub-Inspector of Police and the learned Magistrate was not justified in discharging the respondent on the document, Ex.D-1, which is the first information report in Crime No.1948 of 1992 registered by the respondent on the complaint given by the petitioner, wherein A1 to A4 are shown as accused. The learned counsel further submits that by summoning the petitioner to the police station in connection with the complaint given by Yakub, the respondent has committed an offence u/s 166 IPC, and therefore, the learned Magistrate ought to have dismissed the petition.

I have considered the above contentions. Though the learned Magistrate discharged the respondent, by invoking Section 197 Cr.P.C., on the ground that there was no sanction from the Government for prosecuting him, I am unable to agree with the said finding of the learned Magistrate. The respondent was, admittedly, a Sub-Inspector of Police during the relevant period and no sanction is required from the Government for prosecuting a Sub-Inspector of Police u/s 197 Cr.P.C., since Section 197 Cr.P.C. contemplates sanction to prosecute a public servant only if he is removable from his office by the Government. But, however, I am of the view that the proceedings against the respondent have to be quashed as the allegations, even if taken to be true, do not make out an offence against him u/s 166 r/w Section 109 IPC and the learned Magistrate was justified in discharging the respondent on that ground. Section 166 IPC states that whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will, by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. Section 166 IPC, therefore, shows that to make out an offence against a public servant, it must be shown that he knowingly disobeyed any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself, as such public servant and that by such disobedience, he caused injury to any person. The allegation in the complaint is that the petitioner was summoned to the police station by the respondent in connection with the complaint given by Yakub against him and when the petitioner was at the police station, on being summoned by the respondent, the building, in which he was residing, was demolished and therefore, the petitioner has committed an offence u/s 166 IPC. I am unable to understand as to how the respondent could be penalised u/s 166 IPC on the ground that he summoned the petitioner to the police station for the purpose of making an enquiry in connection with the complaint given by Yakub. There is no disobedience of any direction of the law by the respondent and the complaint also does not show that the respondent disobeyed any direction of the law and caused injury to any person on account of such disobedience. Therefore, no offence is seen made out against the respondent and I am of the view that the learned Magistrate was justified in discharging the accused No. 9, since if the proceedings are allowed to continue, it will lead to abuse of process of court.

In the result, I find no merit in the revision and it is, accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, Crl. M.P. No. 8108 of 1999 is closed.