Punjab-Haryana High Court
Randhir Singh vs Om Parkash Godara Ex-Consolidation ... on 26 April, 2012
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No. M-25636 of 2010 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No. M-25636 of 2010
Date of Decision: 26.4.2012
Randhir Singh ...Petitioner
Vs.
Om Parkash Godara Ex-Consolidation Officer & Ors. ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Mr.Gurmail Singh Duhan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Roopak Bansal, Addl. AG Haryana for respondent Nos.1 & 7.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
The crux of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, complainant Man Singh son of Lijja Ram (since deceased), being represented by his son Randhir Singh (petitioner), instituted a criminal complaint (Annexure P1) against Mehal Pal, Suresh Pal, Ramesh Chand sons of Kundan Lal, Om Parkash Godara, Consolidation Officer (for brevity "C.O."), Dalbir Singh, Kanungo and Pardeep Kumar, Patwari of Consolidation department, private respondents-accused Nos.1 to 6, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.
2. Taking cognizance of the complaint and considering the preliminary evidence, the Magistrate summoned the accused to face the trial under Sections 420, 466, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, vide summoning order dated 6.7.2009 (Annexure P2).
3. In pursuance of the indicated summoning order, Om Parkash Godara, CRM No. M-25636 of 2010 -2- C.O. (respondent No.1-accused No.4) appeared in the Court and moved an application (Annexure P3), for rejecting the complaint qua him for want of statutory sanction under section 197 Cr.PC.
4. The complainant filed the reply (Annexure P4) to the application, taking certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition, cause of action and locus standi of respondent No.1. It was alleged that since he (respondent No.1) has committed the offences of cheating and forgery, so, no sanction under section 197 Cr.PC is required. Thus, while denying the other allegations, the complainant prayed for dismissal of the application.
5. The trial Magistrate, after taking into consideration the accusations made against Om Parkash Godara, C.O. (respondent No.1) and nature of his official duty, came to the definite conclusion that the sanction under section 197 Cr.PC was essential and dismissed the complaint (Annexure P1), qua him, by virtue of impugned order dated 22.7.2010 (Annexure P5).
6. Petitioner Randhir Singh, son of original complainant Man Singh, did not feel satisfied and preferred the present petition, to quash the impugned order (Annexure P5), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.
8. Ex facie, the arguments of learned counsel that as Om Parkash Godara, Consolidation Officer (respondent No.1) has cheated the complainant and committed forgery, therefore, no sanction under section 197 Cr.PC was required and the trial Court committed a legal mistake in reviewing its summoning order (Annexure P2) and dismissing the complaint, qua him (respondent No.1), by means of impugned order (Annexure P5), are neither tenable nor the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in case Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and others (2004) 7 CRM No. M-25636 of 2010 -3- SCC 338 are at all applicable to the facts of this case, wherein, it was observed that after taking cognizance of the complaint and issuing the process by way of summons under section 204 Cr.PC, subsequently, the dismissal of the complaint on the application by the accused under section 203 Cr.PC on a re-consideration of the same material available on record, is impermissible because by then the stage of Section 203 is already over and the Magistrate has proceeded further to Section 204 Cr.PC stage.
9. Sequelly, in case Chintamani Shukla v. State of Chhattisgarh 2009(4) Criminal Court Cases 0609, the Chhittisgarh High Court has held that offence of forgery, cheating and criminal misappropriation is not a public duty, for which, the sanction for prosecution is not required.
10. Possibly, no one can dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but, to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner in the present controversy.
11. As is evident from the record, that the original complainant filed a complaint (Annexure P1) against Om Parkash Godara, Consolidation Officer and other accused, inter-alia pleading that they (accused) conspired together and disturbed the share of the land owners, during the course of consolidation proceedings. The complainant filed a civil suit on 5.2.2000, in which, Pardeep Kumar, Patwari (accused No.6) appeared on behalf of the C.O. (accused No.4) and department of Consolidation of Holdings, through Government Pleader. The Civil Judge restrained them from deducting any land of the complainant, by virtue of order dated 11.2.2000 in the presence of Pardeep Kumar, Patwari. All the accused persons were stated to have forged the documents/record of rights, deducted the land of the complainant and allotted the same to Mehal Pal, Suresh Pal and Ramesh Chand (accused Nos.1 to 3), vide mutation, bearing No.1967 and resolution No.213 dated 20.1.2000.
CRM No. M-25636 of 2010 -4-
12. That means, the epitome of the allegations of the complainant is that Om Parkash Godara, Consolidation Officer (respondent No.1) was stated to have deducted some share of the land of complainant and allotted the same to accused Nos.1 to 3, during the course of consolidation proceedings while performing his official duty under the provisions of The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"), through the medium of indicated mutation and resolution. Pardeep Kumar, Patwari did not point out the deduction of his land to the civil Court at the time of issuance of injunction order against the accused. If the complainant was aggrieved by his (respondent No.1) any order, then, he ought to have filed an appeal/revision under the Act to challenge his action, but he is precluded to file a complaint against him (public servant) without obtaining the statutory sanction under section 197 Cr.PC.
13. As is clear that Section 197 Cr.PC postulates that "when any person who is or was 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 of the State Government."
14. Meaning thereby, since the allegations of commission of alleged offence assigned to Om Parkash Godara (respondent No.1) are so closely related to the function, in discharge of his official duty under the provisions of the Act, so, to my mind, no Court shall take cognizance without the statutory sanction under section 197 Cr.PC against him, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases P.K.Pradhan v. The State of Sikkim represented by the Central Bureau of Investigation 2001(3) RCR(Criminal) 835; State of Orissa v. Ganesh Chandra Jew 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 663; Avtar Singh v. State of M.P. 1994 Cr. L.J. 1575 and of this Court in case Basant Lal v. Sumedha Kataria Aministrator CRM No. M-25636 of 2010 -5- and another 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 440.
15. Therefore, the contrary contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner-accused "stricto sensu" deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances, as the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments "mutatis mutandis" is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.
16. In this manner, once it is proved that no court can take cognizance against a public servant in the absence of statutory sanction under section 197 Cr.PC, then, the question of reviewing summoning order (Annexure P2) by the Magistrate, by way of impugned order (Annexure P5) did not arise at all, as contrary urged on behalf of the petitioner. Thus, the trial Magistrate has rightly dismissed the complaint (Annexure P1) against Om Parkash Godara, C.O. (public servant) for want of sanction, examined the matter in the right perspective and recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant connection. Such impugned order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, in exercise of limited jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.PC, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned order (Annexure P5) deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
17. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties.
18. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed as such.
26.4.2012 (Mehinder Singh Sullar)
AS Judge
Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No