Hakam Singh vs State of Haryana and Others

Sabina, J.—Petitioner has filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the FIR No. 162 dated 19.04.2010 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 167 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Pipli, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, Chargesheet and the order dated 11.07.2011 (Annexure P-15 and P-15/A). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial court could not take cognizance of the matter in the absence of sanction for prosecution of the petitioner from the competent authority. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Om Prakash and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, wherein it was held as under:-

The true test as to whether a public servant was acting or purporting to act in discharge of his duties would be whether the act complained of was directly connected with his official duties or it was done in the discharge of his official duties or it was so integrally connected with or attached to his office as to be inseparable from it. (K. Satwant Singh). The protection given u/s 197 of the Code has certain limits and is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. If in doing his official duty, he acted in excess of his duty, but there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of the official duty, the excess will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the public servant of the protection. (Ganesh Chandra Jew). If the above tests are applied to the facts of the present case, the police must get protection given u/s 197 of the Code because the acts complained of are so integrally connected with or attached to their office as to be inseparable from it. It is not possible for us to come to a conclusion that the protection granted u/s 197 of the Code is used by the police personnel in this case as a cloak for killing the deceased in cold blood.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner and his co-accused had committed cheating/forgery with regard to auction conducted on 19th April. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the petitioner. Vide order dated 11.07.2011, charges were framed against the petitioner and his co-accused. The said order was upheld by the Court of Revision vide order dated 23.08.2013. In the present case, allegations against the petitioner and his co-accused are that in fact they had conducted a fake auction by cheating and forging the record. Charges have been framed against the petitioner and his co-accused qua cheating and forgery. The said offence cannot be said to have been committed by the petitioner in exercise of his official duty.

In Bholu Ram Vs. State of Punjab and Another, it was held as under:-

We express our inability to agree with the learned counsel. It is settled law that offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 etc. can by no stretch of imagination by their very nature be regarded as having been committed by a public servant while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty'' [vide Parkash Singh Badal and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Others,

The Revisional Court was aware of legal position. It was, however, held by the Court that at the most there was negligence on the part of respondent No. 2 but there was no criminal intent and he cannot be held criminally liable. We have already held that mens rea can only be decided at the time of trial and not at the stage of issuing summons. Moreover, a point as to need or necessity of sanction can be taken during the conduct of trial or at any stage of the proceedings. Hence, proceedings could not have been quashed on the ground of want of sanction in the present case. The order of the Revisional Court deserves to be set aside even on that ground.

As per the judgment of the Apex Court in Bholu Ram''s case (supra), no sanction for prosecution of an accused is required qua commission of offence of cheating/forgery. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner fails to advance the case of the petitioner. In the present case, petitioner cannot be said to have acted in excess of his official duty.

It is a settled proposition of law that the petitioner cannot invoke jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. after dismissal of his revision by the Sessions Court as it would amount to a second revision. However, in a case of grave injustice, this Court can interfere u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

In the present case, no grave miscarriage of justice has occurred which would warrant interference by this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. Dismissed.