Delhi District Court
Dr.Satya Prakash Gautam vs State on 12 March, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. SURABHI SHARMA VATS:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04: SHAHDARA:
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.
Crl. Revision No.28/2023
Dr. Satya Prakash Gautam
R/o 103, Dr. Ambedkar Basti,
Ghondi, Delhi - 11053. ............... Revisionist
Versus
1. The State
2. Sh. Swami Rambhadracharya.
S/o Not Known
R/o Not known ........... Respondents
Date of institution : 25.01.2023
Date of reserving order : 04.03.2024
Date of order : 12.03.2024
ORDER
1. Present revision petition has been filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C assailing the impugned order dated 02.12.2022 passed by Ld. MM-02, Sh. Ajeet Narayan vide which Ld. MM has dismissed an application U/s 156(3) Cr.PC and the complaint U/s 200 Cr.PC in the case titled as 'Dr. Satya Prakash Gautam Vs. Swami Rambhadracharya', filed by the present revisionist against the respondent.
2. Being aggrieved, Revisionist has filed the present revision petition on the following grounds that :-
i) Ld. Trial Court has erred in law by not putting his judicial mind into the facts of the case and has tried to shield the proposed accused;Crl. Rev.28/2023 Dr. Satya Prakash Gautam Vs. The State & Anr. Page 1 of 11
ii) that the impugned order dated order 02.12.2022 passed by the Ld. Trial Court is based on conjectures and surmises and hence, liable to be set aside.
iii) that the impugned order has been passed without going through the settled position of law;
iv) that prima-facie complaint discloses commission of cognizable offences. However, Ld. MM ignored the said position and despite commission of cognizable offences, registration of FIR was not ordered by Ld. MM concerned.
3. Arguments on the present revision petition have been heard and record has been perused by this Court.
4. At the very outset, this Court deems it apt to dwell upon the scope of Revisional Jurisdiction of this Court.
In the judgment titled as 'Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander', Crl. Appeal No. 1407 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1516 of 2010) decided on 13.09.2012, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that :-
"8. ....Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well- founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law.......Crl. Rev.28/2023 Dr. Satya Prakash Gautam Vs. The State & Anr. Page 2 of 11
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in 'New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krishna Kumar Pandey', Crl. Appeal No.1852 of 2019 decided on 06.12.2019, made the following observations :
"8. The scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court (or Sessions Court) under Section 397 Cr.P.C, is limited to the extent of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order passed by an inferior Court. The revisional Court is entitled to look into the regularity of any proceeding before an inferior Court. As reiterated by this Court in a number of cases, the purpose of this revisionsal power is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law."
6. In this regard, it would also be apt to quote another judgment of Taron Mohan v. State & Anr, Criminal Rev. Petition 646/2018, decided on 25.01.2021, wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed as under:-
"9. The scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397 CrPC gives the High Courts or the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. It is also well settled that while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally the revising court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case. A court in revision considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence."
7. The precise purpose of Revision is to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of the order in question and to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. Needless to say, that the power of revision needs to be exercised fairly, rationally and Crl. Rev.28/2023 Dr. Satya Prakash Gautam Vs. The State & Anr. Page 3 of 11 judiciously in order to put right any manifest error of law or jurisdiction.
8. Perusal of the impugned order dated 02.12.2022 vide which Ld. MM dismissed the application U/s 156(3) Cr.PC and the complaint U/s 200 Cr.PC in the complaint case titled as 'Dr. Satya Prakash Gautam Vs. State & Anr.' filed by the present revisionist against the respondent reveals that Ld. MM has dismissed the application U/s 156(3) Cr.PC and the complaint U/s 200 Cr.PC, while making the following observations :-
"Admittedly, there is no previous sanction obtained by the complainant in this present case from the competent authority, hence in view of the settled position of law held in 'Anil Kumar & Ors. Vs. M. K. Aiyappa, 2013 10 SCC 705 and Brindia Karat vs. State of NCT of Delhi, Writ Petition (Crl.) 1624/2020, application U/s 156(3) Cr.PC and the complaint U/s 200 Cr.PC stands dismissed being not maintainable due to want to sanction u/s 196 Cr.PC."
9. Now, adverting to the factual matrix of the case, the brief facts of the case as alleged by the revisionist are that the respondent Sh. Swami Rambhadracharya made some insulting and disturbing derogatory statements against the Lord Buddha and against Buddhist community which created an atmosphere of disharmony in the society; that the complainant/ revisionist was too shocked to read such insulting, derogatory and humiliating language from the respondent and due to which, his sentiments have been hurt; that after reading such content, the complainant went to the Police Post, Karkardooma to lodge a complaint against the respondent. However, FIR was not registered against the respondent.
Crl. Rev.28/2023 Dr. Satya Prakash Gautam Vs. The State & Anr. Page 4 of 11Thereafter, Complainant sent his complaint to the SHO, DCP and CP, New Delhi for appropriate action. However, no action was taken by police and therefore, finding no alternative, complainant moved an application U/s 156(3) Cr.PC and complaint U/s 200 Cr.PC r/w section 190 Cr.PC before the Ld. Trial Court.
10. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that the Ld. Trial Court has dismissed his application U/s 156(3) as well as complaint U/s 200 Cr.PC observing that the same are not maintainable due to want to sanction U/s 196 Cr.PC. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has argued that the Ld. MM did not consider the fact that cognizable offences were made out against the respondent no.2. It is further argued that the Ld. MM has tried to step into the shoes of the Counsel for the proposed accused to defend him; that the Ld. MM has failed to consider that the sanction as required U/s 196 Cr.PC may be obtained any time i.e. before or after the registration of an FIR.
11. It is further submitted that allegations in the complaint disclosed commission of a cognizable offence, thus, the concerned SHO was bound to register an FIR. However, he failed to do so. It is further argued that the order of learned Trial Court is mechanical in nature which is being passed, without considering the allegations leveled by Revisionist in his complaint and in his application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C and therefore, order of the Ld. Trial Court vide which application of the Revisionist moved U/s 156(3) Cr.PC and complaint U/s 200 Cr.PC have been dismissed, is liable to be set aside.
Crl. Rev.28/2023 Dr. Satya Prakash Gautam Vs. The State & Anr. Page 5 of 1112. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce Section 196 Cr.PC herein for ready reference :-
Section 196 Cr.PC - Prosecution for offences against the State and for criminal conspiracy to commit such offence - (1) No Court shall take cognizance of -
(a) any offence punishable under Chapter VI or under section 153-A, [section 295-A or sub-section (1) of section 505] of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
(b) a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, or
(c)any such abetment, as is described in section 108-A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government.
[(1A) No Court shall take cognizance of -
(a) any offence punishable under section 153B or sub-
section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 505 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
(b)a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government or of the District Magistrate.]
13. In the instant case at hand, the Complainant/ revisionist has alleged the commission of offences punishable U/s 153A/295A IPC. Prosecution for these offences is governed by section 196 Cr.PC and as per section 196 Cr.PC, no Court shall take cognizance of such offences except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or the State Government.
14. Now, coming to the argument raised by the revisionist (who himself is an Advocate) that Sanction U/s 196 Cr.PC can be obtained at any stage i.e. before or after the registration of FIR.
To address this argument, this Court deems it apposite to refer to a Judgment of our own High Court, titled as 'Brinda Karat & Crl. Rev.28/2023 Dr. Satya Prakash Gautam Vs. The State & Anr. Page 6 of 11 Anr. vs State Of Nct Of Delhi Through Its Standing Counsel & Anr., decided on 13th June, 2022, W.P.(CRL) 1624/2020 & CRL.M.A. 13859/2020, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed that :
"Section 196 of the Code and Requirement of Sanction -
80. Before delving into the question regarding the requirement of sanction under Section 196 and the stage at which such a sanction is required to be seen, it is pertinent that the provision be perused and analysed.
81. Section 196 of the Code reads as under:
"196. Prosecution for offences against the State and for criminal conspiracy to commit such offence.--
(1) No Court shall take cognizance of--
(a) any offence punishable under Chapter VI or under Section 153-A, Section 295-A or sub-section (1) of Section 505 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), or
(b) a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, or
(c) any such abetment, as is described in Section 108-A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government.
(1-A) No Court shall take cognizance of--
(a) any offence punishable under Section 153-B or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of Section 505 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), or
(b) a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government or of the District Magistrate.
(2) No court shall take cognizance of the offence of any criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, unless the State Government or the District Magistrate has consented in writing to the initiation of the proceedings:
Provided that where the criminal conspiracy is one to which Crl. Rev.28/2023 Dr. Satya Prakash Gautam Vs. The State & Anr. Page 7 of 11 the provisions of Section 195 apply, no such consent shall be necessary.
(3) The Central Government or the State Government may, before according sanction under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1-A) and the District Magistrate may, before according sanction under sub-section (1-A) and the State Government or the District Magistrate may, before giving consent under sub- section (2), order a preliminary investigation by a police officer not being below the rank of Inspector, in which case such police officer shall have the powers referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 155."
83. For deciding the question as to at what stage the requirement of sanction is to be seen, it is pertinent to refer to the decided case laws relied upon by the parties.
84. In the case of Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa, (2013) 10 SCC 705, it was held as under:
"11. The scope of Section 156(3) CrPC came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. This Court in Maksud Saiyed case [(2008) 5 SCC 668 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 692] examined the requirement of the application of mind by the Magistrate before exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) and held that where jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 CrPC, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind, in such a case, the Special Judge/Magistrate cannot refer the matter under Section 156(3) against a public servant without a valid sanction order. The application of mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the order. The mere statement that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant, as such, as reflected in the order, will not be sufficient. After going through the complaint, documents and hearing the complainant, what weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, should be reflected in the order, though a detailed expression of his views is neither required nor warranted. We have already extracted the order passed by the learned Special Judge which, in our view, has stated no reasons for ordering investigation.
85. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Army Headquarters v.
Crl. Rev.28/2023 Dr. Satya Prakash Gautam Vs. The State & Anr. Page 8 of 11CBI (2012) 6 SCC 228 opined as follows:
82. Thus, in view of the above, the law on the issue of sanction can be summarised to the effect that the question of sanction is of paramount importance for protecting a public servant who has acted in good faith while performing his duty. In order that the public servant may not be unnecessarily harassed on a complaint of an unscrupulous person, it is obligatory on the part of the executive authority to protect him.
83. If the law requires sanction, and the court proceeds against a public servant without sanction, the public servant has a right to raise the issue of jurisdiction as the entire action may be rendered void ab initio....
127. In light of the aforesaid discussion and reasoning, what emerges is firstly, that the appropriate sanction of government is required for investigation under Section 196 of the Code. Secondly, there is alternative and efficacious remedy available under the Code that needs to be taken resort of, before invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Thirdly, in the instant case, the ACMM has rightly decided the application before it. The provisions of Section 156(3) for directing investigation qua offences mentioned in Section 196 of the Code cannot be exercised by the Court without sanction . There is no prima facie irregularity that is apparent upon a perusal of the impugned order. Fourthly, the petitioners have failed to satisfy the Court and no case is made out warranting the intervention of this Court at this stage."
15. The aforementioned judgment (Brinda Karat) squarely applies to the present case at hand and it is a settled position of law that for the purpose of ordering an investigation U/s 156(3) Cr.PC or for taking cognizance of the alleged offences, Ld. Trial Court is required to take cognizance of the facts before it, which is not permissible, without there being a valid sanction as required U/s 196 Cr.PC. As per the ratio of the judgment Brinda Karat (Supra), sanction U/s 196 Cr.PC is also Crl. Rev.28/2023 Dr. Satya Prakash Gautam Vs. The State & Anr. Page 9 of 11 required at the stage of exercising power U/s 156(3) Cr.PC i.e. for directing investigation qua the offences mentioned in section 196 of the Code.
16. It is pellucid from the perusal of impugned order that the Ld. Trial Court has not commented upon the merits of the case and has dismissed an application U/s 156(3) Cr.PC and complaint U/s 200 Cr.PC on the ground of non-maintainability due to want of sanction U/s 196 Cr.PC and rightly so. Since the alleged offences in question falls within a category of offences as mentioned in section 196 Cr.PC, embargo U/s 196 Cr.PC would apply and therefore, the appropriate sanction of Government is required under section 196 of Cr.PC, even for the purpose of investigation of such offences.
Admittedly, in the instant case at hand, Complainant has not obtained previous sanction from the competent authority, therefore, application U/s 156(3) Cr.PC and complaint U/s 200 Cr.PC is not maintainable for want of sanction U/s 196 Cr.PC.
17. Thus, in the view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the Ld. MM has rightly dismissed an application U/s 156(3) Cr.PC and complaint U/s 200 Cr.PC for want of requisite sanction U/s 196 Cr.PC. The impugned order passed by Ld. MM vide which an application of the complainant/ revisionist herein U/s 156(3) Cr.PC and complaint U/s 200 Cr.PC has been dismissed, does not suffer from any error or illegality. The factual position of the present matter, as discussed above, does not call for any interference in the order dated 02.12.2022 passed Crl. Rev.28/2023 Dr. Satya Prakash Gautam Vs. The State & Anr. Page 10 of 11 by Ld. MM, Shahdara, Karkardooma Court, Delhi in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. Accordingly, the present revision petition stands dismissed and the impugned order of Ld. Trial Court is hereby, upheld.
Revision file be consigned to Record Room. Copy of this order with Trial Court Record be sent to Learned Trial Court for necessary intimation.
Announced and dictated in the open Court on 12.03.2024 (SURABHI SHARMA VATS) Addl. Sessions Judge-04 (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Crl. Rev.28/2023 Dr. Satya Prakash Gautam Vs. The State & Anr. Page 11 of 11