Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

21. As regards the grievance of the petitioner that Ext.P4 representation for sanction has not been considered by the first respondent and no intimation has been given regarding the same, that can be disposed of by this Court by giving direction to the first respondent to dispose of the petition as has been done in the decision reported in Aleque Padamsee & Others v. Union of India and others (2007 (6) SCC 171) and decided in the decision reported in Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Dr. Manmohan Singh & Another (AIR 2012 SC 1185) giving direction to the first respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P4 representation, if any filed by the petitioner seeking sanction to prosecute the 4th respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. So, the writ petition is disposed of as follows:

i. The petitioner is not entitled to get writ of mandamus or other writ directing the third respondent to register a crime and investigate the case as claimed in the petition and that prayer is rejected.
ii. It is open to the petitioner aggrieved by the in action of the police to adopt the remedy available by filing a private complaint under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code.
iii. So far as not granting of sanction as requested for in Ext.P4 is concerned, it is for the Government concerned to deal with the prayer and the 1st respondent is directed to consider and dispose of Ext.P4 representation as early as possible in accordance with law, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order on the basis of the observations made in Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Dr. Manmohan Singh & Another (AIR 2012 SC 1185).