JUDGMENT Hon’ble Devendra Pratap Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Ram Adhar Yadav and Hari Gupta, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein in the writ petition, alleged to be active members of the then ruling party, barged into the office of the District Panchayat Raj Officer in Deoria on 18.4.2006 and after misbehaving with him and manhandling the petitioner, a clerk in that office, they tore the official records, abused and threatened them. When on information no action was taken by the Police, a written information was sent to the Police Station on 20.4.2006 but the then Station Officer did not lodge any F.I.R. The employees Union thereafter took up the issue and threatened to strike work, but yet no action was forthcoming, on the ground that the intruders had political patronage of the powers that be. Having no option, an application under Section 156 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code was lodged when the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria passed an order on 9.5.2006 directing the Police to lodge an F.I.R. and investigate the incident. When even after expirty of one month, nothing was done, the petitioner approached this Court through the present petition in June 2006. With these basic allegations a mandate was sought to the State respondents to perform their statutory obligation and also for action against the respondent No. 6. After hearing the State the following order was passed on 19.6.2006 : “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate. Certain persons disturbed working of the office of the District Panchayat Raj Officer and manhandled him and thus he sought to lodge an F.I.R. but to no avail. Thereafter he was forced to move an application under section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. And the Magistrate allowed the application and yet F.I.R. was not lodged nor any action was taken against the accused persons. Superintendent of Police, Deoria, Respondent No. 2, shall file his personal affidavit on or before 22nd of June, 2006 as to why no action has been taken till date. The Station Officer, Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Deoria shall be present on 22nd of June, 2006 in person before the Court for further orders with an explanation and details of the action taken by him. The learned Government Advocate is hereby directed to communicate this order to both the officials today. The Station Officer, Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Deoria shall be present on 22nd of June, 2006 in person before the Court for further orders with an explanation and details of the action taken by him. The learned Government Advocate is hereby directed to communicate this order to both the officials today. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned Government Advocate today. List/put up on 22nd of June, 2006.” 3. During pendency of the writ petition, certain new developments took place and apart from filing several supplementary affidavits, an amendment application was also filed which was allowed and thereafter the amended copy of the writ petition has also been filed. 4. It appears that against the order dated 9th of May 2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate for registering the FIR, a Criminal Revision No. 156 of 2006 was filed by Ram Adhar Yadav, respondent No. 4 and the said revision was allowed without hearing the petitioner vide order dated 16th June 2006 which is also challenged in this petition. 5. It further appears that a magisterial enquiry was ordered by the District Magistrate into the incidents of 18th April 2006 and an enquiry report dated 24.6.2006 was submitted by the Chief Development Officer incriminating the petitioner and other officials and based on that report the District Magistrate vide a letter dated Ist of July 2006 forwarded it to the State Government to enable it to take action against the officials. The enquiry report dated 24th of June 2006 and also the consequential letter 1.7.2006 are also under challenge. 6. It further appears that in pursuance of the same incident, the accused Ram Adhar Yadav and others also lodged a first information report which was promptly registered on 19th April 2006 and was duly registered as Case Crime No. 331 of 2006. The police has submitted charge sheet in both the cases. However, Sri Yadav filed an application dated 21.11.2006 that both the cases be tried together whereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order dated 17th January 2007 that effort would be made to decide both the cases together since they were pending before the same Court. The police has submitted charge sheet in both the cases. However, Sri Yadav filed an application dated 21.11.2006 that both the cases be tried together whereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order dated 17th January 2007 that effort would be made to decide both the cases together since they were pending before the same Court. Dissatisfied, Sri Yadav filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court numbered as 3549 of 2007 which was finally disposed off on 22.2.2007 without noticing the order dated 17.1.2007, asking the Chief Judicial Magistrate to consider the application which had already been considered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Confronted with this order, the Chief Judicial Magistrate vide an order dated 19.3.2007 held that the earlier order passed by it dated 17.1.2007 was not disclosed before this Court and reiterated the said order. Sri Yadav again preferred the connected Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court numbered as 10721 of 2007 for setting aside the order dated 19.3.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria and for a direction to decide both the cases by a common order and a learned Single Judge vide order dated 17.5.2007 has stayed the trial. 7. After filing of the charge-sheet against the petitioner and other officials of the office of District Panchayat Raj Officer, Deoria, all three of them have preferred the other connected Crl. Misc. Application No. 1681 of 2007 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge-sheet on the ground that no case against them is made out and further that no sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. having been obtained from the Government, the charge-sheet No. 377 of 2006 in Case Crime No. 331 of 2006 against them be quashed. 8. The Court, in the ordinary course, would have refrained from proceeding further after submission of the charge-sheet against the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, but it was confronted with some startling disclosures such as : 1.On 6th July 2006 the Executive Engineer of the III Sarai Division in Khalilabad was assaulted in relation to grant of contract. The incident was reported on 8.7.2006 in daily newspapers ‘Dainik Jagran’ and ‘Hindustan Times’. 4 and 5, but it was confronted with some startling disclosures such as : 1.On 6th July 2006 the Executive Engineer of the III Sarai Division in Khalilabad was assaulted in relation to grant of contract. The incident was reported on 8.7.2006 in daily newspapers ‘Dainik Jagran’ and ‘Hindustan Times’. 2.A member of the legislative assembly from the ruling party misbehaved and assaulted the Director General of Health and his subordinates and when the employees confronted them they fled the seen waiving fire arms on 26.7.2006 but no report was lodged immediately. The incident is reported in the daily newspaper ‘Amarujala’ on 27.7.2006. 3.Education Officials were assaulted by members of the ruling party in Rai Bareily but no F.I.R. was lodged. The incident is reported in the daily newspaper ‘Amarujala’ on 28.7.2006. 4.Superintendent of Police of Firozabad was assaulted by a M.L.A. of the ruling party in the presence of the District Magistrate. The incident is reported on 28.7.2006 edition of ‘Amarujala’. 5.A M.L.A. assaulted employees in the office of Basic Education Department in Gorakhpur and tore up official files. The incident is reported on 4.8.2006 edition of daily newspaper ‘Hindustan Times’. 6.An Assistant Road Transport Officer was assaulted by a legislator of the ruling party in Khushi Nagar during checking of vehicles. The incident is reported in ‘Dainikjagran’ edition on 13.8.2006, in ‘Hindustan Times’ on 18.8.2006. 7.Brother of a ruling party legislator assaults a constable in a Police Station and sets free arrested persons. The incident is reported in the ‘Amarujala’ edition on 25.8.2006 and in ‘Hindustan Times’ on 26.8.2006. These are but some incidents which have been brought on record through a supplementary affidavit which have not been denied by the State and the Court feels that an authoritative decision ought to be given in these proceedings. 9. The trend of refusing to register Reports of cognizable offences involving political leaders of the ruling party by the concerned police stations is rising and as a direct consequence, petitions under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. are burdening the otherwise over burdened Justice delivery system. 10. Before we deal with the case, it would be appropriate to examine the legal position. 11. Criminal Procedure Code provides the procedure to deal with the offences as mentioned in the Indian Penal Code. It differentiates between cognizable and non-cognizable offences and provides different procedures to deal with them. P.C. are burdening the otherwise over burdened Justice delivery system. 10. Before we deal with the case, it would be appropriate to examine the legal position. 11. Criminal Procedure Code provides the procedure to deal with the offences as mentioned in the Indian Penal Code. It differentiates between cognizable and non-cognizable offences and provides different procedures to deal with them. While Section 2(c) defines cognizable offences, as under : “2 (a) ............................... (b) ................................... (c) “cognizable offence” means an offence for which, and “cognizable case” means a case in which, a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant.” Non-cognizable offences are defined in Section 2(I) as under : “”non-cognizable offence” means an offence for which, and “non-cognizable case” means a case in which, a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant.” Section 154 provides how disclosure of cognizable are to be dealt with by the police in the following words: “154. Information in cognizable cases.—(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribed in this behalf. (2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant. (3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (I) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.” 12. A perusal of the provision shows that the police have no discretion when commission of a cognizable offence is disclosed except to register it. Even paragraph 97 of the Police Regulations mandates the officer incharge of the police station to register the information disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence and it has no discretion in the matter except to investigate and arrest, if necessary. This position has been clarified time and again by the Apex Court including in the cases of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 , followed by the decision in Ramesh Kumari v. NCT Delhi, 2006 (2) SCC 277 and Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, 2007 (1) SCC 1 . No doubt, there is no provision contained in the Code for actual registration of the first information report even after an order under Section 156 (3) of the Code, but it is expected that once the order is placed before the Officer Incharge, he has no option but to forthwith lodge the report immediately and investigate. 13. From the statement of facts recorded hereinabove, it is apparent that though the officials of the office of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Deoria were knocking the doors of the police officials for lodging of their FIR and taking action against the accused persons, no action was taken and only when this Court passed the order on 19.6.2006 that the first information report was lodged, but not before lodging the first information report of the accused persons. Apparently, the officials were under some pressure, political or otherwise. However, the Court need not go further into it. The facts disclosed hereinabove, including the instances when persons connected with the ruling party have been accused in various incidents for creating havoc and assaulting Government officials reflects a dangerous trend. The Magisterial enquiry also appears to be a part of it. However, since criminal investigation in both the FIRs have been completed and charge-sheets submitted, the report looses its sheen and also on the ground that even though the reputation of the petitioner was at stake, no show cause was issued against him. Accordingly, the report dated 24.6.2006 and the consequential order dated 1.7.2006 are hereby quashed. 14. However, since criminal investigation in both the FIRs have been completed and charge-sheets submitted, the report looses its sheen and also on the ground that even though the reputation of the petitioner was at stake, no show cause was issued against him. Accordingly, the report dated 24.6.2006 and the consequential order dated 1.7.2006 are hereby quashed. 14. So far as the order of the learned Sessions Judge is concerned, it is apparent that without hearing the petitioner and without application of mind, the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate has been set aside. A perusal of the application moved under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. apparently discloses commission of a congnizable offence, hence finding recorded by the revisional Court that no case is made out, is totally erroneous. Thus, the order dated 16.6.2006 is quashed. 15. From the facts of this case it is apparent that it was the respondent No. 4 alongwith his companions who had gone to the office of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Deoria allegedly to ascertain the outcome of the orders passed by the District Magistrate when the alleged incident took place in the office of District Panchayat Raj Officer. Though both parties have given their own version, but it leads to the only conclusion that the alleged action of the petitioner and other officers of the Department was committed during performance of their official duties, whether as a reaction or not, but on these facts, sanction under Section 197 (1) Cr.P.C. was necessary as held by this Court in the case of Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das and others, AIR 2006 SC 1599 and the case of Jaya Singh v. K.K. Velayutham and another, 2006 (9) SCC 414 . But that cannot be a ground to quash the charge-sheet against the officials because sanction can be obtained at any time, even after submission of the charge sheet. Thus, it would be appropriate to obtain sanction before proceeding further by framing charge and committing the case for trial of the officials of office of District Panchayat Raj Officer. 16. Accordingly, Criminal Misc. Thus, it would be appropriate to obtain sanction before proceeding further by framing charge and committing the case for trial of the officials of office of District Panchayat Raj Officer. 16. Accordingly, Criminal Misc. Application No. 1681 of 2007 is disposed off with a direction that no further action shall be taken in consequence to charge-sheet No. 377 of 2006 dated 7.11.2006 submitted in reference to Case Crime No. 331 of 2006 under Sections 143, 504, 506 and 323 IPC till sanction is obtained under Section 197 (1) Cr.P.C. 17. In view of the aforesaid, the applicants in Criminal Misc. Application No. 10721 of 2007 cannot be granted any relief in view of the orders passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1681 of 2007 and accordingly Criminal Misc. Application No. 10721 of 2007 is hereby rejected. 18. Subject to the aforesaid directions, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The revisional order dated 16.6.2006, the report dated 24.6.2006 and the consequential order dated 1.7.2006 are hereby quashed. No further proceedings on the basis of the charge-sheet dated 7.11.2006 in Case Crime No. 331 of 2006 shall take place before obtaining sanction under Section 197 (1) Cr.P.C. However, the trial in pursuance to the charge sheet submitted in Case Crime No. 331A of 2006 be concluded within six months from the date of filing of a copy of this order. 19. In the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. —————