ORDER : Crl.P.No.9349/2022 filed by petitioner/accused No.4 and other four petitions Crl.P.Nos.9354/2022, 9312/2022, 9365/2022 and 9486/2022 are filed by accused Nos.8 to 11 respectively under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the PCR.No.57/2022 and to quash the FIR in Crime No.73/2022 registered by the Channapatna East Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 211, 220, 417, 420 506 342, 347, 348 read with Section 34 of IPC pending on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapatna, Ramanagara District. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner in all 5 cases, learned HCGP for the State and learned counsel for respondent No.2/defacto complainant. 3. The case of the petitioners are that respondent No.2 defacto-complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and the same is registered as PCR No.57/2022 and got it referred to the police station for the investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., in turn the Channapatna East Police registered FIR against the petitioners and others for the offence punishable as per the aforementioned Sections. It is alleged by the defacto-complainant that on 04.11.2020 the petitioner/accused No.4 being Police Sub-Inspector and accused Nos.8 to 11 are the Police Constables working in Channapatna Police Station apprehended the defacto complainant at Bangalore. They said to have been snatched the mobile phone, laptop and taken him to the police station in respect of Crime No.102/2020 and they have produced before the Magistrate. In turn, he was remanded to judicial custody, subsequently he was released on bail. Thereafter, the private complaint filed by the complainant before the Magistrate, it is alleged that accused Nos.3 to 5 along with these defacto complainant are founder of Meditrix, a predictive and preventive health care analytics company in Andhra Pradesh. There was some inter se quarrel between the partners and accused No.5 has filed complaint to the police and in pursuance of the said complaint, the present petitioner apprehended the defacto complainant and they harassed and manhandled him, they destroyed the programmes in the laptop and obtained the signature on the blank papers in the police station. They have manipulated various documents at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 3 and accused No.5. They have manipulated various documents at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 3 and accused No.5. The dispute between the complainant and his partners were civil dispute, where the police registered a false case and seized the articles, thereby accused Nos.1 to 3 and accused No.5 in collusion with these petitioners filed a false case against him. After registering of the complaint, the complaint has been referred to police station under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and in turn FIR has been registered against the petitioner for police officials and others which is under challenge. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner appearing for petitioners strenuously contended and challenged FIR and complaint mainly on the grounds, that the petitioners are police officials who have acted as per the law, they apprehended the complainant in criminal case registered against respondent No.2 in Crime No.102/2020 and they have discharged official duty, where the respondent No.2 prevented the police officials from discharging their official duty, therefore one more case has been registered against respondent No.2 in Crime No.103/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC and in order to overcome those cases, a false complaint has been filed against petitioners. 5. The learned counsel further contended the petitioners are police officials, they said to be done the offence while discharging the official duty, therefore a protection is available under Section 197 of Cr.P.C and a sanction is required to prosecute a case against them. The complainant not taken any sanction from the complainant authority, therefore the complaint as well as FIR is not sustainable and liable to be quashed. 6. The learned counsel further contended that there is violation of guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 . He has not approached the police for filing the complaint, he has directly filed the private complaint before the Magistrate and got it referred. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable in view of the violation of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava's case. 7. The learned Senior counsel further contended that there is delay in filing the complaint for more than 400 days. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable in view of the violation of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava's case. 7. The learned Senior counsel further contended that there is delay in filing the complaint for more than 400 days. Therefore, the complaint cannot be entertained, there is a bar for taking cognizance under section 468 of Cr.P.C and further contended there is no offences made out against petitioners and there is no ingredient to attract any of the offences for taking cognizance or investigate the matter. The learned counsel also submits there is no specific allegation made against the accused Nos.8 to 11 who are police constables, hence prayed for allowing the petitions. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 objected the petitions and contended that there is no delay in lodging the complaint. The alleged offence punishable with 7 years of imprisonment and therefore, Section 468 of Cr.P.C. has no bar for taking cognizance. He further contended that in respect of sanction it is not required for the investigation as per the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandan Kumar Basu vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 13 SCC 70 and in the case of Rajib Ranjan and others vs. R Vijaykumar reported in (2015) 1 SCC 513 and contended that the accused committed the offence conspired with accused No.5 and therefore, the offence committed by accused No.4 and accused Nos.8 to 11 are not during the discharging of the official duty. Therefore, the sanction is not required under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. The said principle has not been brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.Devaraja vs. Owais Shabir Hussain reported in (2020) & SCC 695, in CRl.A.No.458/2020 (arising out of SLP 13 Crl.1882/2018) and further contended that the complaint filed against the police, therefore, when the written complaint was filed against the same police official of Channaptana police, they refused to receive the complaint, hence, they filed complaint to the DGP and the same is produced before the Magistrate as per document No.25. Therefore, respondent No.2 complied the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava's case and further contended that the FIR registered against respondent No.2 in Crime No.102/2020 where the case was referred to the CID investigation, they have filed 'B' final report and therefore, it is contended that the matter is required for investigation by the police. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petitions. 9. The learned High Court Government Pleader also objected the petitions and submitted that after registering the FIR within a month, stay has been granted, the police were unable to find out the truth and it is in pre- matured stage. The police are ready to investigate the matter. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petitions. 10. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the records, which reveals, there was inter se dispute between the partners of the company i.e., respondent No.2, accused Nos.1 to 3 and accused No.5. Subsequently, accused No.5 said to be filed complaint to the Channapatna Police as against respondent No.2-defacto complainant. A case in Crime No.102/2020 was registered in Channapatna Police on 04.11.2020. Accused No.4 is the PSI and accused Nos.8 to 11 who are the Police Constables under the instruction of the PSI, they apprehended respondent No.2 at Cunningham Road and he was taken to the Channapatna Police where a investigation was conducted by accused No.4-PSI in respect of Crime No.102/2020. It is alleged by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that during the custody of respondent No.2, accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 came to the police station on 04.11.2020, obtained signature on the blank papers and other documents and used the said documents against respondent No.2 and the same was misused by accused No.5 stating that respondent No.2 has resigned from the company. But it was forcefully taken the signature of respondent No.2 in the Police Station when he was in custody. of course, the police might have obtained the signature of the complainant for the purpose of helping accused No.5 who is the complainant in Crime No.102/2020. However, the investigation was conducted by the PSI-accused No.4 in respect of Crime No.102/2020. Subsequently, respondent No.2 got remanded to the judicial custody and he was released on bail on 10.11.2020. of course, the police might have obtained the signature of the complainant for the purpose of helping accused No.5 who is the complainant in Crime No.102/2020. However, the investigation was conducted by the PSI-accused No.4 in respect of Crime No.102/2020. Subsequently, respondent No.2 got remanded to the judicial custody and he was released on bail on 10.11.2020. It is submitted by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that later the investigation was handed over to the CID police, 'B' final report has been filed and it is pending for consideration. However, the petitioneraccused No.4-PSI and accused Nos.8 to 11 are Police Constables have committed the offence during the discharge of their official duty while investigation in Crime No.102/2020. Therefore, the sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is required to proceed against them for the purpose of any investigation. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.Devaraja stated supra, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the similar situation has held at paragraph Nos.74, 75, 76, 77 which are as under: "74. It is well settled that an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is maintainable to quash proceedings which are ex facie bad for want of sanction, frivolous or in abuse of process of court. If, on the face of the complaint, the act alleged appears to have a reasonable relationship with official duty, where the criminal proceeding is apparently prompted by mala fides and instituted with ulterior motive, power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code would have to be exercised to quash the proceedings, to prevent abuse of process of court. 75. There is also no reason to suppose that sanction will be withheld in case of prosecution, where there is substance in a complaint and in any case if, in such a case, sanction is refused, the aggrieved complainant can take recourse to law. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that the records of the instant case clearly reveal that the complainant alleged of police excesses while the respondent was in custody, in the course of investigation in connection with Crime No. 12/2012. Patently, the complaint pertains to an act under colour of duty. 76. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that the records of the instant case clearly reveal that the complainant alleged of police excesses while the respondent was in custody, in the course of investigation in connection with Crime No. 12/2012. Patently, the complaint pertains to an act under colour of duty. 76. Significantly, the High Court has by its judgment [H. Siddappa v. Owais Sabeer Hussain, 2018 SCC OnLine Kar 3805] and order observed : (H. Siddappa case [H. Siddappa v. Owais Sabeer Hussain, 2018 SCC OnLine Kar 3805] , SCC OnLine Kar para 5) 5. … it is well-recognised principle of law that sanction is a legal requirement which empowers the court to take cognizance so far as the public servant is concerned. If at all the sanction is absolute requirement, if takes cognizance it becomes illegal, therefore, an order to overcome any illegality the duty of the Magistrate is that even at any subsequent stages if the sanction is raised it is the duty of the Magistrate to consider. 77. In our considered opinion, the High Court clearly erred in law in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the order of the Magistrate impugned taking cognizance of the complaint, after having held that it was a recognised principle of law that sanction was a legal requirement which empowers the court to take cognizance. The Court ought to have exercised its power to quash the complaint instead of remitting the appellant to an application under Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code to seek discharge." 11. Though the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has contended and relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Chand (Paniwala) vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others reported in (1981) 1 SCC 639 and in the cases of Chandan Kumar Basu and Rajib Ranjan both stated supra, where the alleged offence in the said case were 468, 420, 120B and those offences were not connected with discharging the official duty. Therefore, those judgments are not applicable to the case on hand. 12. As regard to the another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no compliance of guidelines issued in Priyanka Srivastava's case, where respondent No.2 has not approached the Police and directly has filed the private complaint. Therefore, those judgments are not applicable to the case on hand. 12. As regard to the another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no compliance of guidelines issued in Priyanka Srivastava's case, where respondent No.2 has not approached the Police and directly has filed the private complaint. In this regard, respondent counsel produced the copy of the complaint filed before the DG and IGP on 27.11.2021 and contended that he took the complainant to the Police Station, but they refused to lodge the complaint, therefore, he has filed complaint to the Higher officers of the Police Station who is the DGP of the State. Therefore, he has complied the guidelines issued in Priyanka Srivastava's case. Of course, the complainant-respondent No.2 not produced any copy of the complaint filed against the Channapatna Police at Channapatna Police Station. But it is pertinent to note that the complaint is against accused No.4 who is the PSI of Channapatna Police Station and definitely he might have refused. Of course, the complainant could have filed the complaint before the Superintendent of Police as per Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C., but the complaint came to be filed before the DG and IGP. It is brought to the notice of this Court and as per the 'B' final report and enquiry made by the CID Police, the PSI registered the case on the complaint filed by accused No.5 at the instance of the Superintendent of Police one Girish, at that time, he was S.P. of Ramanagar District. Such being the case, definitely the complaint was filed before the PSI as well as S.P. either under Sections 154(1) or 154(3) of Cr.P.C., they might have refused. Therefore, the complaint came to be filed before the DGP. However, the complainant might have sent the complaint to the Police Station through RPAD either to the Police Station or to the Superintendent of Police, but respondent No.2 has not chosen to send the complaint to the Police as per Section 154(1) or to the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C., but filed complaint directly to the Magistrate under Section 200 of Cr.P.C and got it referred to the Police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by filing a complaint to Inspector General and Deputy General of Police. Therefore, there is a clear violation of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava's case. Therefore, on this court, the FIR registered by the Police on the complaint referred by the Magistrate is not sustainable under the law. 13. As regards to the delay in lodging the complaint, of course, he was released on bail on 10.11.2020, but the complaint came to be filed before the Magistrate on 30.03.2022 i.e., more than 1½ years. However, in view of the findings above, for non compliance of the guidelines issued in the Priyanka Srivastava's case and not obtained any sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., it is not necessary to consider the delay in lodging the complaint and also this Court is not required to go into the ingredients of the provisions of Section mentioned in the complaint. Therefore, I am of the view, in view of the non compliance of Priyanka Srivastava's case, without sanction, the Police cannot investigate the matter and even the Magistrate cannot refer the complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for requirement of sanction. Therefore, the complaint as well as FIR required to be quashed as it is abuse of process of law. 14. Accordingly, all the five petitions are allowed. 15. The proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 8 to 11 in PCR No.57/2022 pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapatna and in Crime No.73/2022 pending on the file of I Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Channapatna, Ramanagara District are hereby quashed.