Rajeev Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 April, 2016

[Cites 7, Cited by 14]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rajeev Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 April, 2016

1. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 10.11.2006 by which the court has taken cognizance against the petitioner on a private complaint filed by the respondent no. 2. The court has held that there is evidence to take cognizance against the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 294 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act.

2. The respondent no. 2 filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. He pleased that he is member of SC and he was working as Peon in the office of Registrar. The petitioner was posted as Registrar in the office of Registry. The petitioner had forced the respondent no. 2 to clean toilet and sever system. When he refused to do the act the petitioner had abused him by the language of his caste. The report of the incident was lodged at the Police Station. No action was taken. Then the respondent no. 2 filed a private complaint. Before the Court statement of respondent no. 2 was recorded and same facts have been deposed by him. The court passed the following order :- 2

^^ 10-11-2006 'kklu dh vksj ls Jh vjfoan ikBd fo'ks"kyksd vfHk;kstu vfHk;qDr lfgr Jh ,l-,y- JhokLro vf/koDrkA vkjksi ij rdZ lqus x;sA fopkj.k U;k;ky; ls izkIr vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA ifjoknh }kjk izLrqr ifjokn i= ,oa /kkjk 200] 201] na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr izLrqr lk{; esa mls vuqlwfpr tkfr dk lnL; gksus ds dkj.k lkoZtfud #i ls n`'; LFkku ij viekfur dj xkyh&xykSap fd;s tkus ds laca/k esa izFke n`"V;k Li"V rF; izLrqr gS] ftlds vkyksd esa izFkr n`"V;k vfHk;qDr ds fo#) /kkjk 294 Hkk-na-fo- ,oa /kkjk 3 ¼1½ ¼10½ v-tk@v-t-tk- ¼vR;kpkj fuokj.k½ vf/kfu;e dk vkjksi cuuk izrhr gksrk gSA rn~uqlkj vfHk;qDr ds fo#) mDr /kkjkvksa ds vUrxZr vkjksi cukdj mls i<+dj lquk;s o le>k;s x;s] vfHk;qDr }kjk vkjksi ls badkj fd;k x;k vkSj fopkj.k pkgkA vfHk;qDr dh Iyh fjdkMZ dh x;hA /kkjk 294 na- iz-la- ds vUrxZr fo'ks"k yksd vfHky;kstd ,oa vfHk;qDr ,oa vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls dksbZ Hkh nLrkost Lohdkj ugha fd;k x;k gSA fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd lkf{k;ksa dh vkgwr fd;s tkus gsrq vkxkeh is'kh ij Vªk;y izksxzke izLrqr djsaA izdj.k okLrs Vªk;y izksxzke gsrq fnukad 23-11- 06 dks is'k gksA^^

3. The court has held that there is prima facie evidence to take cognizance against the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Sections 294 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act. The court did not discuss the evidence. It is also a fact that the petitioner was working as Registrar in the Registry office and the allegation against the petitioner are during office hours. The court also did not discuss the fact that whether the sanction from the 3 Government is necessary because the petitioner is public servant. Before taking cognizance against the petitioner the sanction is necessary or not as required under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.

4. The Supreme Court in the matter of D.T. Virupakshappa vs C. Subash in Criminal appeal No. 722 of 2015 has held as under in regard to power of Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence without sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C:-

"6. The question, whether sanction is necessary or not, may arise on any stage of the proceedings, and in a given case, it may arise at the stage of inception as held by this Court in Om Prakash and others v. State of Jharkhand through The Secretary, Department of Home, Ranchi 1 and another. To quote:

41. The upshot of this discussion is that whether sanc-

tion is necessary or not has to be decided from stage to stage. This question may arise at any stage of the proceed- ing. In a given case, it may arise at the inception. There may be unassailable and unimpeachable circumstances on record which may establish at the outset that the police officer or public servant was acting in performance of his official duty and is entitled to protection given under Section 197 of the Code. It is not possible for us to hold that in such a case, the court cannot look into any documents produced by the ac- cused or the public servant concerned at the inception. The nature of the complaint may have to be kept in mind. It must be remembered that previous sanction is a precondi- tion for taking cognizance of the offence and, therefore, there is no requirement that the accused must wait till the charges are framed to raise this plea. ..."

7. In the case before us, the allegation is that the appellant exceeded in exercising his power during investigation of a criminal case and assaulted the respondent in order to ex- 4

tract some information with regard to the death of one San- namma, and in that connection, the respondent was de- tained in the police station for some time. Therefore, the al- leged conduct has an essential connection with the discharge of the official duty. Under Section 197 of CrPC, in case, the Government servant accused of an offence, which is alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty, the previous sanction is necessary."

5. The Supreme Court has specifically held that if the alleged conduct has es- sential connection with the discharge of the official duty, the previous sanc- tion is necessary before taking cognizance against a Government servant.

6. In the present case, the petitioner was assigned the official duty as Regis- trar.

7. The order taking cognizance passed by the Magistrate is non speaking. Hence, it is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the trial court for passing fresh order after considering evidence on record and legal as- pect.

(S.K. Gangele) JUDGE bks HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL BENCH AT JABALPUR M.Cr.C. No. 11496 of 2006 Rajeev Jain Vs State of M.P. For petitioner : Shri Manish Datt, learned Sr. Adv assisted by Shri Rahul Sharma, Adv.


        For Respondent-State :      Manoj Kushwaha, PL




                               OR DER
                           (       .04.2016)


                                             Post for   /04/2016




                                             (S.K. Gangele)
                                                JUDGE
                                                /04/2016

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court