JUDGMENT : 1. Applicant-Rajeshbhai Maganbhai Gajera is the original complainant and respondent Nos.2 to 11-Sonalben Vinubhai Gajera & Ors. are the original accused in the main proceedings before the courts below.. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the applicant shall hereinafter be referred to as the original complainant and the respondent Nos.2 to 11 shall herein after be referred to as the accused persons. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 shall be referred to as ‘IPC’ and Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 shall be referred to as the ‘Code’ 2. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code, the applicant-original complainant seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the 12th Additional. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat dated 14th November, 2011, dismissing the complaint of the complainant by exercising power under Section 203 of the Code as well as order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat dated 30th December, 2013 in Revision Application No.30 of 2012, confirming the order passed by the learned 12th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat on 14th November, 2022. 3. Facts, in brief, which gives rise to the present application are as under; 3.1 On 9th October, 2010, an FIR being I-224 of 2010 came to be lodged by the applicant before the Kapodra Police Station, Surat against the respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 114 and 188 of the IPC, in which, the accused were enlarged on bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Surat. 3.2 It is stated in the said FIR that the respondent No.3 came into contact with the present applicant before three years and as they belongs to the same community, they came in acquaintance with each other. It is stated in the complaint that before ten months from the date of the incident, the respondent No.3 has asked for some financial help from the original complainant. Therefore, the original complainant gave him Rs.1,14,000/-. It is the say of the original complainant that though three months period had been passed, the respondent No.3 did not return back the said money as promised by him. 3.3 Thereafter, a legal notice came to be issued to the respondent No.3 by the original complainant, to which, as on date no reply has been given. It is the say of the original complainant that though three months period had been passed, the respondent No.3 did not return back the said money as promised by him. 3.3 Thereafter, a legal notice came to be issued to the respondent No.3 by the original complainant, to which, as on date no reply has been given. The applicant-original complainant also tried to settle the matter with the help of community people, however, instead of settling the matter, the respondent No.3 told the original complainant to do whatever you can do and, therefore, on 9th October, 2010, the original complainant went to the society of the respondent No.3. At that time, the respondent No.3 was there along with his sons, namely, Vinubhai and Lalitbhai and they, all of a sudden, rushed to the applicant-original complainant. Vinubhai and Lalitbhai covered the applicant-original complainant with Chorsa and the respondent No.3 attempted to kill the present applicant by giving a sword blow. 3.4 Thereafter, due to the aforesaid incident, the applicant- original complainant approached the respondent Nos.6 and 7 who are the police officers and made a request to add Section 307 of the IPC in the complaint filed by him. In this regard, he made an application to the concerned police authority on 20th October, 2010 , however, till date, no action has been taken by them. A reminder in the form of an application dated 29th November, 2010 was also given to the respondent Nos.6 and 7, however, they have not given any response to the complaint filed by the applicant dated 5th March, 2011. 3.5 It is the case of the applicant-original complainant that the respondent No.6 had made hand in glove with the respondent No.2 which would shock the conscience of the common man. Moreover, the respondent No.8, being the police authority, had called upon the applicant at Kapodra Police Station on 16th January, 2011 and lodged a complaint against the applicant-original complainant under Section 354 of the IPC being FIR No.I-12 of 2011 whereby the respondent No.6 has falsely implicated the applicant in the present case. 3.6 Being aggrieved by such illegal confinement and unlawful act on the part of the respondents, the present applicant- original complainant was constrained to file the Criminal Complaint on 5th March, 2011 being Private Criminal Complaint No.253 of 2011 before the 12th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surat. 3.6 Being aggrieved by such illegal confinement and unlawful act on the part of the respondents, the present applicant- original complainant was constrained to file the Criminal Complaint on 5th March, 2011 being Private Criminal Complaint No.253 of 2011 before the 12th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surat. However, the learned Presiding Officer declined to accept the said complaint and rejected the same vide order dated 14th November, 2011. 3.7 Thereafter, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 14th November, 2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in Private Criminal Complaint No.253 of 2011, the applicant-original complainant had preferred Criminal Revision Application No.30 of 2012 in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the said revision application and confirmed the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. 3.8 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned orders passed by both the courts below, the present applicant is here before this Court with the present application. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Bomi Sethna appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that applicant is the original complainant and he has filed one private complaint against the accused persons before the 12th Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat on 5th March, 2011. Thereafter, the verification of the complainant also came to be recorded. The evidence of the complainant’s wife was also recorded and, thereafter, the said complaint was dismissed by the concerned court. The said order is challenged before the Sessions Court by way of preferring a revision application which was also rejected by the Additional. Sessions Judge, Surat on 30th December, 2013. 5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said orders, present application is preferred under Section 482 assailing the said orders by raising manifold grounds. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Sethna has submitted that both the courts below have committed grave error by not considering the materials available on record in its true spirit and proper perspective. On the contrary they have put undue emphasis upon the non-important issues and by doing so, have committed an error which is required to be rectified by quashing and setting aside the said orders and allowing the present application. The judgment and order passed by both the courts below are vexatious, capricious, perverse and not based upon the sound principle of law and, therefore, require to be quashed and set aside. Learned advocate Mr. The judgment and order passed by both the courts below are vexatious, capricious, perverse and not based upon the sound principle of law and, therefore, require to be quashed and set aside. Learned advocate Mr. Sethna has submitted that if Hon’ble Court would make cursory glance upon the reasons assigned and findings recorded by the courts below, then it is found that essentially, three points have been considered by the courts at the time of rejecting the complaint of the complainant. The first reason assigned by the court below is that the complainant’s verification is found to be verbatim same as to the sequence of events of incident mentioned in the complaint. Therefore, the court below thought that by cramming all the contents of the complaint, the applicant had given his verification before the court below. The second point upon which emphasis was made by the court below is that there was gross delay in preferring the complaint. It has been observed that the complainant has got best opportunity to register his complaint before the concerned Magistrate as and when he was produced before the court by the police officers. The complainant has not made any complaint either orally or in writing to the concerned Magistrate as regards the ill-treatment meted out to him by the police officers in the police custody. The statement of the complainant’s wife was recorded, however, it was not found in consonance with the allegations levelled in the complaint and also does not inspire any confidence to be relied upon. The third reason assigned by the court below is that the complaint is registered against total eleven persons, and out of the said eleven persons, four are police officers. They are the Government employees and, therefore, before initiation of any criminal prosecution against the Government employee, appropriate sanction is required to be obtained from the concerned higher authority of the Government. Admittedly, at the time of filing the complaint against the said officers, the complainant did not obtain any sanction from any higher authority. Learned advocate Mr. Sethna has submitted that the said order was challenged by way of preferring revision application, however, the said revision application was also rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by confirming the reasons assigned by the learned 12th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Learned advocate Mr. Sethna has submitted that the said order was challenged by way of preferring revision application, however, the said revision application was also rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by confirming the reasons assigned by the learned 12th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Sethna has submitted that a bare perusal of the orders passed by both the courts itself show and suggest that at the time of considering the complaint of the complainant, both the courts have failed to consider the genuine cause of difficulties faced by the complainant and at the time of deciding the application of the complainant, both the courts have fallen in error by not appreciating the settled proposition of law as enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as various High Courts in catena of decisions. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Shakeel Qureshi appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4- Vinubhai Parshottambai Gajera has vehemently submitted that the judgment and order passed by both the courts are just, fair and reasonable and based upon the sound principle of law and do not require any interference at the end of this Hon’ble Court. Learned advocate Mr. Qureshi has submitted that the present application is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of law on the part of the applicant-complainant with a sole intention to harass the rival parties. Learned advocate Mr. Qureshi has submitted that, in fact, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and the applicant both have registered cross-complaints against each other and the applicant was arrested by the police officers and, therefore, by keeping grudge against the respondent Nos.2 to 4, applicant had preferred an application to add section 307 in the complaint which was registered by him and for the purpose of addition of the said section in the charge-sheet and/or police papers, the applicant has fervently made efforts before the various authorities by writing a letter. The said application preferred by the applicant is pending before the competent authority. Learned advocate Mr. Qureshi has submitted that the fate of the said application would be decided by the Hon’ble Court and the issue involved in the present application is pending available with the concerned judicial officer and/or the Investigating Officer, in which, the respondent Nos.2 to 4 have no role to play. Learned advocate Mr. Qureshi has submitted that the fate of the said application would be decided by the Hon’ble Court and the issue involved in the present application is pending available with the concerned judicial officer and/or the Investigating Officer, in which, the respondent Nos.2 to 4 have no role to play. Even though in the present complaint, they have been dragged and arraigned as accused as if they have actively participated in the commission of crime. Learned advocate Mr. Qureshi has submitted that if Hon’ble Court would go through the sequence of events mentioned in the complaint, in that event, it is found out that the problems have been cropped up subsequently, i.e., after the submission of the application to add section 307 in the charge-sheet. Learned advocate Mr. Qureshi has submitted that it is also an admitted position of fact that complaint came to be lodged by the complainant, however, along with the complaint, not a single piece of paper pertaining to medical evidence was produced by the complainant. When serious allegations regarding ill-treatment were levelled against the police officers, in that event, to substantiate the charge of accusation levelled against the accused, certain documentary evidence is required to be produced. If complainant has sustained serious injury by the police officers, in that event, certainly he might have taken treatment from the medical officer and an injury certificate purportedly issued by the medical officer requires to be produced along with the complainant to establish the genuineness of the charge levelled against the accused persons. Learned advocate Mr. Qureshi has submitted that admittedly as per the case of the complainant, on the very next day, he was produced before the competent court by the police officers in a case wherein he was shown as an accused and complainant has got best opportunity to ventilate his grievance and register the complaint before the concerned Magistrate orally or in writing, but reasons best known to the complainant, the complainant has not registered any complaint against the police officers. After lapse of period of two and half months, the present complaint is registered by the complainant and that is why the narration of version of complaint was not believed by both the courts below. Learned advocate Mr. After lapse of period of two and half months, the present complaint is registered by the complainant and that is why the narration of version of complaint was not believed by both the courts below. Learned advocate Mr. Qureshi has submitted that the said incident was occurred in the year 2012 and now we are in the year 2023 and during the interagnum period, much water has flown. In fact, matter was amicably settled between the parties and with the consensus of each other, they have entered into the compromise which was reduced into writing and duly signed by the respective parties and produced the said compromise deed in both the cases which was taken on record and by putting reliance upon the same as well as the other materials available on record, the courts below have passed orders of acquittal in both the cross-complaints. The simple copy of the acquittal orders passed by the respective courts are produced by the learned advocate Mr. Qureshi which are directed to be taken on record. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Qureshi has candidly submitted that it is also an admitted position of fact that as per the settled proposition of law that at the time of registering the complaint against a Government employee, sanction is not a condition precedent and sanction can be accorded during the course of proceedings and after the commencement of trial also, non-availability of sanction cannot vitiate the complaint at the time of taking cognizance. 10. Learned APP Mr. Himanshu Patel has submitted that essentially the dispute is between the two private parties and prima facie it seems that the dispute is private in nature. Government need not have to play any effective role in this matter but he has gone through the papers and submitted that the record itself shows and suggests that both the courts below have not committed any error of law at the time of deciding the complaint of the complainant. 11. Having considered the arguments canvassed by the learned advocates appearing for the rival parties and considering the materials available on record, it appears that the essentially the dispute was between the applicant-original complainant and the private respondents with regard to lending of money which subsequently resulted in an altercation between the applicant and the private respondents, for which, cross-complaints came to be filed by both the sides. 12. 12. It is an admitted position of fact that the complainant has filed the present complain against respondent Nos.2 to 4 before the Kapodra Police Station being C.R. No.I-224 of 2010. Pursuant to the registration of the complaint investigation was commenced and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (accused) were arrested and produced before the Court. At that point of time, the complainant appeared before the court and raised objections against the accused persons to be released on bail. After considering all the materials available on record, the concerned court has released the accused persons on bail by imposing suitable conditions. Thereafter, the applicant has filed an application addressing to the Investigating Officer to add section 307 stating that considering the grievous injury sustained by him and as per the allegations levelled in the complaint, and the mode and manner in which the incident occurred, all the ingredients pertaining to Section 307 are clearly spelt out. Despite the said fact, the Investigating Officer had not submitted report before the competent court to add section 307 in the said matter and, therefore, applicant has made applications to the various authorities for the purpose of addition of the said section in the charge-sheet papers. One fine day, applicant was called upon by the police officers for the purpose of recording his statement pertaining to the said issue about addition of Section 307 in the charge- sheet papers. Therefore, he went to the police station and at that point of time, instead of recording his statement, he was ill-treated, harassed, abused and beaten black and blue by the police officers. In short atrocities were meted upon him by the police officers without any fault on his part. He was taken in the custody and at that point of time, he tried to know that under which offence he was arrested but instead of giving proper reply, he was abused by the police by using filthy language and, therefore, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said action of the atrocities committed by the police officers, complainant was constrained to register complaint before the competent court who has jurisdiction to try the case. It is also an admitted position of fact that cross- complaints have been filed by the parties against each other and present applicant accused was also arrested in the cross- complaint. It is also an admitted position of fact that cross- complaints have been filed by the parties against each other and present applicant accused was also arrested in the cross- complaint. He was produced before the competent court on the very next day. However, at that time, the applicant has not made any complaint either orally or in writing before the concerned Magistrate about the ill-treatment meted out to him by the police officers. That was the best opportunity available to the applicant to ventilate his grievances against the police officers about the ill-treatment, abuse and physical assault meted out to him by the police officers. Had he made complaint against the concerned police officer at the relevant point of time about the physical assault before the concerned judicial officer, in that event, his complaint would be registered and/or a report might be called for from the concerned person and/or medical opinion can be sought or alternatively applicant can be sent before the medical officer for the purpose of getting treatment and on the strength of the said actions, some concrete material could have been made available to form a prima facie opinion. Admittedly, here in the case on hand, reasons best known to the applicant, he has not made any complaint with the concerned Magistrate about the ill-treatment and physical assault made by the police officers. This is the first best opportunity available to the applicant, but he failed to grab the said opportunity. Not only that, thereafter, after lapse of two and half months, present private complaint is filed before the concerned court against the accused persons. Along with the complaint, he has not produced any medical papers to substantiate his grievance about the ill-treatment and physical assault made by the accused persons. Therefore, considering the issue of delay, the concerned court has rightly dismissed the complaint of the applicant and the said view was rightly confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the revision. 13. I have gone through the entire complaint of the complainant and found that it is very lengthy one and various instances have been cited in the entire body of the complaint. 13. I have gone through the entire complaint of the complainant and found that it is very lengthy one and various instances have been cited in the entire body of the complaint. At the time of registration of the complaint, verification of the complainant was recorded and in the said verification, he has reiterated all the sequence of incidents of occurrence as narrated in the complaint in a verbatim manner and, therefore, the courts below did not believe the verification of the complainant. The said view adopted by the learned trial court is not correct one because the complainant has narrated facts of the complaint before the court below in the form of verification and there is no discrepancy found in the complaint and the verification, in that event, the Hon’ble Court has to go through the contents of the verification and has to pass order accordingly. The statement of the wife of the complainant was also recorded which does not inspire confidence as well as no in consonance with the allegations levelled in the complaint and, therefore, it was not considered. Except his wife, no independent witness was examined by the complainant. It is true that the learned Judge has got valuable right to see the conduct, behavior, attitude, approach and demeanor of the witness (complainant) at the time of recording verification as well as deposition of the witness and on account of physical presence of the witnesses, the trial court has got additional advantage to take stock of the situation and assess the same. I have also gone through the record and it is found out that the verification recorded by the complainant at the time of registering the complaint is verbatim same but, according to me, this is not a ground on the basis of which complaint of the complainant can be thrown out at the threshold. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the said reasons assigned by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge is not in consonance with the statutory provisions. On the contrary, complainant has to record his verification on oath before the Hon’ble court as per the allegations levelled in the complaint and if contents of the verification and complaint are found contradictory, in that event, cognizance can not be taken and on this count only, complaint of the complainant could be dismissed. 14. On the contrary, complainant has to record his verification on oath before the Hon’ble court as per the allegations levelled in the complaint and if contents of the verification and complaint are found contradictory, in that event, cognizance can not be taken and on this count only, complaint of the complainant could be dismissed. 14. It is also found from the record that the learned trial judge has put reliance upon the provisions of the Code, more particularly, Section 197 of the Code and observed that at the time of registration of the complaint, complainant has not produced any sanction to prosecute the accused persons as certain accused are the government employees and before initiation of any criminal prosecution against the government employee, necessary sanction is required to be accorded. The aforesaid reasons assigned by the learned Judge is not palatable in the eye of law because law is very much settled in this regard that if any complaint is registered against a government employee pursuant to any unlawful activity committed by him/her while discharging his/her duty, in that event, sanction from the higher authority is not required to be obtained before registration of the complaint. 15. Just to throw some light upon the controversy involved in the matter so far as issue of sanction under Section 197 is concerned, I would like to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya vs. Anand Athabhai Chaudhari, reported in 2021 (0) ALJEL- SC 67923. It is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that in the absence of sanction under Section 197, the proceedings cannot be vitiated. Sanction can be obtained during the course of trial also. I would like to quote, with profit, para-15 of the said judgment which reads thus; “5. Now, so far as the observation made by the High Court that in view of bar under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and no sanction was obtained is concerned, the aforesaid also cannot be ground to quash criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Now, so far as the observation made by the High Court that in view of bar under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and no sanction was obtained is concerned, the aforesaid also cannot be ground to quash criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Looking to serious allegations against the Police Officers of misuse of powers and it is alleged that innocent persons residing in the society were beaten and even in the earlier day the phone call was made by the complainant/victim informing that thieves have come in the society and complaint was made that nothing is being done despite repeated such incidents and the alleged incident in the present case is in the midnight when again Police Officers along with additional police staff went to the village and the allegation against the accused are with respect to second incident, it is very debatable whether power under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would apply and the acts which are alleged to have been done by the accused/Police Officers can be said to be part of official duties. Therefore, at this stage, to quash the entire criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is impermissible. Even assuming that the High Court was right that in absence of sanction under Section 197, the proceedings are vitiated, in that case, the High Court could have directed the authority to take sanction and then proceed, instead of completely quashing the entire criminal proceedings.” 16. The proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above case, itself shows and suggests that due to non-availability of the sanction, trial cannot be vitiated and solely on that count, complaint of the complainant cannot be dismissed at the threshold at the admission stage. Therefore, it can be safely said the reasons assigned by the learned 12th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in revision so far as issue pertaining to according sanction before registering the complaint against the government employee are not in consonance with the statutory provisions as well as ratio of the latest pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court and various High Courts. The reasons assigned and findings given by both the courts below so far as issue pertaining to registration of complaint against the government employee is concerned that sanction is a condition precedent and in absence of sanction complaint cannot be entertained, however, I am not in agreement with the said view adopted by both the courts so far as issue pertaining to sanction is concerned. It is settled proposition of law that sanction can be accorded at any point of time during the proceedings of the trial and after the commencement of the trial. Therefore, mere non-availability of sanction at the time of registration of the complaint, the complaint of the complainant cannot be thrown out at the threshold and the said view adopted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge is not proper one and I am deviate with the said view. So far as rest of the reasoning and findings assigned by both the courts at the time of deciding the complaint are concerned, they are just, fair and reasonable and I am in full agreement with the same. 17. The third reason upon which much emphasis was made by the learned trial Judge is that there was gross delay in registering the complaint. The complainant has got all valuable right to register the complaint before the concerned Magistrate before whom he was presented immediately on the very next day. He had not registered complaint before the concerned Judge orally or in writing. That was the best opportunity available to the complainant, but reasons best known to the complainant, he has not exercised the said rights at that relevant point of time. Not only that, it is an admitted position of fact that complainant is keeping grudge against the police officers because he has made an application to add section 307 in the charge-sheet but said section was not added by the Investigating Office. The said application is pending for consideration before the Investigating Officer and due to the said reason, complainant has grievance against the Investigating Officer, After the occurrence of the said incident, complainant has waited for a period of two and half months and during the interregnum period, he has sent letter to the various authorities which was prepared after taking legal advice. Therefore, prima facie, it seems that he was in touch with the advocate and upon the aid and advise given by the learned advocate, he has acted upon and subsequently, registered the complaint against the accused persons. The entire sequence of events of incident narrated in the complaint shows that there was gross delay in registering the complaint and, prima facie, it seems that the intention of the complainant was not pure. Hence, solely on this ground, complaint of the complainant is required to be rejected at the threshold and I am of the considered opinion that the judgment and order passed by both the courts below do not require any interference at the end of this Court at this juncture so far as issue of delay in registering the complaint is concerned. It is found out from the record that the issue regarding the law of limitation is concerned, the complainant has miserably failed to assign any proper reasons for explanation of delay in registering the complaint. The complainant has got best opportunity to ventilate his grievance before the concerned Magistrate against the culprits while he was produced before it immediately on the very next day of the so called incident. The complainant has kept mum and did not disclose anything before the concerned Magistrate and after lapse of more than two and half months, he has come up with the case that he was beaten by the police in the police custody but he could not gather courage to register the complaint at the relevant point of time. The said delay is unexplained and is not satisfactory one and, therefore, on this ground alone, the complaint filed by the complainant is required to be dismissed. 18. It is worth noting that the dispute between the parties are amicably settled between them and on the strength of the settlement purshis filed by the parties before the concerned Competent Court, the proceedings of both the cross-cases have been concluded and order of acquittals have been passed. Therefore, essentially the actual cause of action to register complaints against the rival parties is also resolved and is not in existence. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any good reason to entertain the petition. 20. In the result, this application fails and is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim relief, if any, stands vacated. Therefore, essentially the actual cause of action to register complaints against the rival parties is also resolved and is not in existence. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any good reason to entertain the petition. 20. In the result, this application fails and is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim relief, if any, stands vacated. No order as to costs.