AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Thomas P. Joseph, J.—Petitioners are accused in C.C. No. 1435 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Punalur for offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 341, 342, 294(b) and 506 and 24 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioners who are the Sub Inspector, Constable and Police Driver of Koluthupuzha Police Station filed C.M.P. No. 2323 of 2011 before the learned Magistrate seeking their discharge u/s 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") on the ground that cognizance is taken without getting sanction u/s 197 of the Code. Learned Magistrate rejected that contention and dismissed C.M.P. No. 2323 of 2011 which is under challenge before this Court u/s 482 of the Code. I have heard the learned Counsel for Petitioners and the Public Prosecutor on the maintainability and sustainability of this petition u/s 482 of the Code.
A Division Bench of this Court in Prabhakaran v. Excise Circle Inspector 1992 (2) KLT 860 while considering whether an order framing charge rejecting the contention of the accused is interlocutory or not observed in paragraph 15 that framing of charge may or may not amount to interlocutory order as it depends upon facts of the case, the statute under which proceedings have been initiated, as also the nature of objections raised against it Crl. MC No. 1450/2011 etc. If the objection or objections raised against the order framing charge are such that upholding such objection/objections would result in termination of the proceedings, then framing of charge cannot be regarded as merely interlocutory order for the purpose of revisional jurisdiction u/s 397(2) of the Code.
Applying that principle to the facts of the present case, if the contention of the Petitioners that without sanction u/s 197 of the Code learned Magistrate was not correct in taking cognizance of the offences against Petitioners is accepted, consequence is that the proceeding against Petitioners will have to be either dropped or, Petitioners are to be discharged as provided under law. In otherwords, if the contention of Petitioners is accepted, the court having no jurisdiction to take cognizance, proceeding before it has to be terminate in favour of Petitioners. In that view of the matter I am not inclined to think that the order under challenge is interlocutory in character so that a revision will not lie in view of Section 397(2) of the Code and hence Petitioners are to invoke the extraordinary power u/s 482 of the Code. It is true, as the Supreme Court has stated in Raj Kapoor and Others Vs. State and Others, and Popular Muthiah Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, even when the revisional remedy is available, the power of the High Court u/s 482 of the Code is not taken away. But the procedure provided by the Code has to be followed. Petitioners have to challenge the impugned order by way of revision.
At this stage, learned Counsel has sought permission to Crl. MC No. 1450/2011 withdraw the Criminal Miscellaneous Case without prejudice to the right of Petitioners to file revision before the appropriate court. Having regard to the circumstances I am inclined to allow that request.
Resultantly this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to the right of Petitioners to file revision before appropriate court as provided under law. The documents if any produced along with this Criminal Miscellaneous Case shall be returned to the counsel for Petitioners on request.