Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 489 (MP)

Shameem Khatoon v. R. P. Ramanwal

2008-03-28

K.S.CHAUHAN

body2008
ORDER : 1. This criminal revision has been preferred under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the impugned order passed in Criminal Revision No. 184/1994 by Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur on 12-3-1997 whereby the order of taking cognizance of offence under sections 166, 294 and 451 of Indian Penal Code against respondent by CJM Chhatarpur in Complaint Case No. 455/94 on 3-9-1994 has been set aside. 2. According to prosecution, on 30-4-1994, accused persons committed house trespass, used filthy language and extended threats to Shameem Khatoon. Complaint was filed in the Court of CJM Chhatarpur for taking action against accused persons. On the basis of police report and evidence of Shameem Khatoon, Abdul Kadus and Hari Singh, CJM took cognizance on 3-9-1994 against the accused persons and registered offence under sections 166, 294 and 451 of Indian Penal Code and process were issued. One of the accused persons, R. P. Ramanwal, the then Naib Tehsildar preferred revision before the Sessions Court wherein Criminal Revision No. 184/94 was registered which was allowed by Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur on 12-3-1997. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by revisional Court, instant revision has been preferred on the grounds mentioned therein. 3. Shri Saurabh Sunder, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that only cognizance was taken and processes were issued, therefore, there was no question to take sanction under section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, the order of setting aside regarding taking cognizance of offence passed by revisional Court is illegal. 4. On the other hand, Shri Raj Kamal Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that without taking prior sanction for prosecution, taking cognizance of offence by the trial Court was not justified, therefore, the revisional Court has rightly held the Bar of section 197, Criminal Procedure Code applicable to the present case hence no interference is called for. 5. The main point for consideration in this revision is that whether the revisional Court has committed any illegality in setting aside the order regarding taking cognizance of by CJM Chhatarpur and allowing the revision of respondent. 6. Mohd. Shameem Ansari, husband of complainant Smt. Shameem Khatoon was employed as Steno typist at Chhatarpur. One Government quarter was allotted to him. The complaint was received that he is running a typing institute and has sub-let some portion of it to tenant. 6. Mohd. Shameem Ansari, husband of complainant Smt. Shameem Khatoon was employed as Steno typist at Chhatarpur. One Government quarter was allotted to him. The complaint was received that he is running a typing institute and has sub-let some portion of it to tenant. Therefore, the respondent and one S. N. Sengar were directed to make an enquiry on 18-3-1994 and they submitted the report accordingly. On 21-3-1994 husband of complainant was suspended by Collector Chhatarpur and departmental enquiry was initiated against him. On 30-4-1994, near about 1½ months complainant filed a complaint before CJM Chhatarpur. The trial Court registered a case on 3-9-1994. The revisional Court allowed the revision on the ground that compliance of section 197, Criminal Procedure Code has not been made. 7. Section 197(1) of Criminal Procedure Code runs as follows: “Section 197(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or 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 while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction: (a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government. (b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government. Provided.........” 8. At the time of incident, respondent was probationary Naib Tehsildar. He was acting in discharge of his duties. He was not removable from service except the order of State Government. Therefore, the sanction of State Government was necessary prior to taking cognizance of the alleged offence committed by him at the relevant time. The same has not been taken, therefore, the revisional Court has rightly held the application of bar of section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code. 9. Revisional Court has also dealt with every aspect in great detail and came to the conclusion that no offences under sections 166, 294 and 451 of Indian Penal Code are made out. The same has not been taken, therefore, the revisional Court has rightly held the application of bar of section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code. 9. Revisional Court has also dealt with every aspect in great detail and came to the conclusion that no offences under sections 166, 294 and 451 of Indian Penal Code are made out. Such finding cannot be said to be unjustified. 10. The trial Court lost sight of the fact that this complaint was filed against respondent and S.N. Sengar for the ulterior motive to pressurize them to save her husband from clutches of law. On the one hand her husband was doing illegal work by running typing institute in Government quarter and sub-letting some part to other person. Therefore, revisional Court has rightly set aside the order of taking cognizance by CJM Chhatarpur. No any perversity, infirmity or illegality is found in the order. Therefore, no interference is called for. There is no merit in the revision hence deserves to be dismissed. 11. Consequently, revision fails and is dismissed accordingly.