AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prafulla C. Pant, J.—By means of this petition, moved u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case No. 121 of 2004 State v. P.S. Rawat and Ors. relating to offences punishable u/s 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State.
Brief facts of the case are that a first information report was got lodged by the respondent No. 3 Smt. Ravi Devi, against the petitioners with Police Station, Kotwali, Uttarkashi, which was registered as crime No. 214 of 2003, relating to offences punishable u/s 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, I.P.C, after obtaining order u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C from the Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi. It is alleged in the first information report that the petitioners are officers of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. The complainant respondent No. 3 had a connection of Telephone No. 222612. It is alleged by the complainant that due to the inaction/wrong action on the part of the petitioners she was handed over a Telephone bill amounting Rs. 5530/-. It is pleaded by her that when she approached the petitioners she was promised by them that the bill would be set right. But again for the month of April she received a bill of Rs. 3309, there after for the month of May, June and July she got another bill amounting Rs. 3837. It is alleged by her that her bill included calls of other persons, which had nothing to do with the telephone number 222612. The investigating officer after investigation submitted that final report stating that no offence is said to have been made out against the petitioners. However, the Magistrate when issued notices to the respondent No. 3/complainant she filed a protest petition on which the Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant and witnesses u/s 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C, whereafter the Magistrate summoned the petitioners vide his order dated 13.10.2004 to face the trial in respect of aforesaid offences. The petitioners filed a criminal revision No. 28 of 2004. However, said revision was dismissed vide impugned order dated 14.06.2005, passed by Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi. Hence this petition.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are public servants and for and action in discharge of their public duties, they cannot been prosecuted without the sanction as required u/s 197(1) of Cr.P.C.
Sub-section (1) of Section 197 provides that when a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government, is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him in discharge of his official duty, no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the concerned Government. In this case there is no sanction obtained from the Government. It is not disputed that the petitioners are public servants. The trial court as well as the revisional court have committed grave error of law in summoning the accused to face the trial without their being a sanction, required under the law.
Therefore, for the reasons as discussed above the petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.06.2005, passed by Sessions Judge Uttarkashi, in criminal revision No. 28 of 2004 and the order dated 13.10.2004, passed by the Judicial, Magistrate, Uttarkashi in Criminal Case No. 121 of 2004 State v. P.S. Rawat and Anr. are here by quashed. The entire criminal proceedings in the matter shall stand quashed. Registry is directed to inform the court concern.