Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 131 (UTT)

LAL SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2012-03-27

PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2012
Judgment Heard. 2. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal complaint case no. 828 of 2004, Sunita Wilson vs. Dr. Brahm Singh and another, relating to offence punishable under section 295A IPC, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Laksar. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a criminal complaint case was filed by respondent no.2 Sunita Wilson against one Dr. Brahm Singh, of Community Health Centre, Laksar, and the present petitioner Lal Singh who was ward boy at the Centre. In said complaint which was filed in the year 2002, the complainant stated that she is member of Christian Community, and her husband Maxwel Wilson was Chawkidar in the Communlty Health Centre, Laksar. She has alleged in the criminal complaint that accused used to insult her husband for being member of Christian Community. On said complaint, the Magistrate recorded statement of the complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C., and that of witnesses under section 202 Cr.P.C., but did not find substance in it, and vide order dated 29.05.2002, the criminal complaint was dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C. It appears that a criminal revision was filed against said order, and the same was allowed vide order dated 22.07.2002, passed by Sessions Judge, Hardwar, in criminal revision no. 297 of 2002, whereby the Magistrate was directed to pass, fresh orders. Consequently, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, Summoned the present petitioner Lal Singh, and co-accused Dr. Brahm Singh to face trial in respect of the offence punishable under section 295A IPC. Aggrieved by said order both the accused filed criminal revision no. 320 of 2004, which was dismissed by Sessions Judge, Hardwar, vide his order dated 24.12.2005. Hence this petition. 4. Aggrieved by the above order co-accused Dr. Brahm Singh moved criminal, miscellaneous application (C482) no. 346 of 2006, challenging the prosecution on the ground that the cognizance in the criminal complaint was barred by section 196, Cr.P.C . Said criminal miscellaneous application no. 346 of 2006, was allowed vide order dated 18.08.2010, passed by this Court upholding the plea that the cognizance was taken by the Magistrate without there being any sanction from the Central Government or the State Government. Following foot steps of co-accused Dr. Said criminal miscellaneous application no. 346 of 2006, was allowed vide order dated 18.08.2010, passed by this Court upholding the plea that the cognizance was taken by the Magistrate without there being any sanction from the Central Government or the State Government. Following foot steps of co-accused Dr. Brahm Singh, now this time accused Lal Singh has challenged his prosecution on the same ground. 5. Section 295A of Indian Penal Code provides punishment for deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. 6. Sub-section (1) of section 196 provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 295A of Indian Penal Code except with the previous sanction of the Central Government and the State Government. 7. From the summoning order dated 24.10.2002, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, in the impugned criminal complaint case, it is clear that both accused Dr. Brahm Singh and Lal Singh were summoned to face trial in respect of the offence punishable under section 295A IPC. There is no mention in the order summoning the accused that any sanction was obtained by the complainant from the Central Government or from the State Government. As such, the impugned proceedings of the criminal cases are directly hit by sub-section (1) of section 196 Cr.P.C. 8. This court, vide its order dated 18.08.2010, passed in criminal miscellaneous application (C482) No. 346 of 2006, has already quashed the proceedings, on the petition of the co-accused Dr. Brahm Singh against him on the above ground. The case of the present petitioner Lal Singh is identical to that of Dr. Brahm Singh. In the criminal complaint it is not mentioned as to which of the two accused insulted the complainant Sunita Wilson’s husband for being member of the Christian Community. Nor is there any mention of date and time of commission of the crime. 9. In the above circumstances, since the cognizance of offence punishable under section 295A IPC, on criminal complaint is barred by subsection (1) of section 196 Cr.P.C., for the want of sanction from the Government (Central Government or State Government), the criminal proceedings against the present petitioner Lal Singh in respect of the offence punishable under Section 295A IPC, are liable to be quashed. 10. Accordingly, the Petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., is allowed. The proceedings of criminal complaint case no. 10. Accordingly, the Petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., is allowed. The proceedings of criminal complaint case no. 828 of 2004, Sunita Wilson vs. Dr. Brahm Singh and another, relating to offence punishable under section 295A IPC, pending in the court of Judicial Magistratel Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Laksar, are hereby quashed as against the petitioner Lal Singh. As against another co-accused Dr. Brahm Singh, the proceedings are already quashed by this Court vide its order dated 18.08.2010. (Urgency application 1469 of 2010, also stands disposed of).