Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1083 (RAJ)

Sachin Singhal v. Superintendent of Police

2021-07-09

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. The petitioner Sachin Singhal has approached this Court through this revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. for assailing the order dated 08.03.2019 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhoti Sadari, Pratapgarh whereby, the private complaint preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. It may be mentioned here that the complaint at hand was a second complaint on same facts filed by the petitioner in the court below. The previous complaint was rejected vide order dated 07.03.2017 which attained finality as the same was not challenged any further. It may be further mentioned here that the complaint of 2015 came to be filed by the petitioner-complainant by arraigning the then Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh as an accused. The petitioner complainant sought prosecution of the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh for the offences under Sections 119, 155, 156 & 166 IPC alleging inter alia that he had sent a fax to the S.P. Office, Pratapgarh on 04.07.2014 complaining that his family had been attacked, his house was trespassed into and ransacked but the police officers of the Police Station Chhoti Sadari did not pay any heed to the complaint made by the petitioner in this regard. The petitioner herein alleged in his complaint that by failing to take action on his fax, the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh was responsible for the above offences. The complainant examined himself under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in support of the complaint. No document whatsoever was filed or proved by the complainant in support of the complaint lodged in the year 2015 and accordingly, the same was rejected vide order dated 07.03.2017. The trial court also held that the complaint could not be proceeded in absence of previous sanction for prosecution, mandatorily required under Section 197 Cr.P.C. Be that as it may. The petitioner did not challenge the order dated 07.03.2017 and instead lodged a second complaint in the court below which has also been rejected by order dated 08.03.2019 which is assailed in this revision. 3. Shri Singhal, learned counsel representing the petitioner complainant, vehemently and fervently urged that the earlier complaint was rejected because the petitioner could not file relevant documents in support thereof whereas in the second complaint all relevant documents, to be specific, the fax sent to the S.P. Office, Pratapgarh was annexed and hence, the trial court ought not to have rejected the complaint of the petitioner. In support of his contentions, Shri Singhal placed reliance on the following judgments : 1. Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivlingappa Konjalgi & Ors. reported in AIR 1976 SC 1947 2. Jialal Sharma vs. Mahadev Prasad reported in 1982 CRLJ 1913 3. Ashok Kumar vs. Mariappan reported in 1993 CRLJ 2780 4. Deputy Chief Controller of Imports & Exports vs. Roshanlal Agarwal reported in (2003) 2 SCR 621 . 5. Jagdish Ram vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2004) 2 SCR 846 6. Bhushan Kumar vs. State reported in AIR 2012 SC 1747 4. & urged that at the stage of issuance of process, the learned Magistrate is only required to consider allegations of the complainant and evidence led in support thereof. A satisfaction is to be recorded only regarding a prima facie case being made out and it was absolutely unwarranted for the learned Magistrate to have rejected the petitioner's complaint on hyper technical issues and by making a detailed discussion as if the case was being finally decided. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. 6. Suffice it to say that the subsequent complaint filed by the petitioner had to fail because the same was not based on any new material. While lodging the first complaint, the petitioner did not file the so-called fax on which his entire case was based. Even, the contents of the fax were not described by the petitioner in the complaint. Not only this, the petitioner did not specifically allege that the fax was, as a matter of fact, received at the SP office while filing the second complaint. For the sake of repetition, it may be mentioned here that the petitioner did not challenge the order dated 07.03.2017 by which his previous complaint with the same allegations was rejected by the court below on merits. 7. Be that as it may. In the second complaint, the petitioner did not lead any evidence under Section 200/202 Cr.P.C. on the basis whereof, the complaint could have been proceeded with. Furthermore, in the present revision, the petitioner has not impleaded the Officer sought to be prosecuted in the complaint. Impleadment has been made in form of "Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh" which is a post and not a person. Furthermore, in the present revision, the petitioner has not impleaded the Officer sought to be prosecuted in the complaint. Impleadment has been made in form of "Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh" which is a post and not a person. Thus, the mandate of Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. has not been complied with by the petitioner in this revision. That apart, I am of the view that even if the allegations levelled by the petitioner in his highly belated complaint, which came to be lodged after nearly ten months of the alleged incident are seen, manifestly, the same relate to discharge of official duties by an officer in the rank of Superintendent of Police and the prosecution of such officer could not have been allowed without previous sanction mandatorily required under Section 197 Cr.P.C. This was one of the precise grounds for rejection of the petitioner's complaints, past and present. The findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned order dated 08.03.2019 are absolutely justified and do not call for any interference therein. Hence, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed as being devoid of merit. 8. The original record shall be returned to the trial court forthwith.