Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Another submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order in Crl.O.P.No.22158 of 2014 reads that “As soon as such sanction is made available, the Metropolitan Magistrate shall hold inquiry and then proceed further with either under Section 203 Cr.P.C or under Section 204 IPC.” It is further submitted that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has not conducted enquiry as directed. Without conducting enquiry, he issued summons to the petitioners. The order in Crl.O.P.No.22158 of 2014 was passed on 09.12.2014. The adjudication https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  Crl.O.P.Nos.472 and 831 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.Nos.196, 397, 8670 and 8671 of 2016 order of Additional Mahila Magistrate Court dated 19.06.2015 shows that on production of xerox copy of sanction order for A2 along with new original order, summons was ordered to A1 and A2. This adjudication order reflects that no enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. It is also seen that after issuing summons on 19.06.2015, learned Magistrate examined witnesses on 04.09.2015 and 18.09.2015 as per the order of the High Court and again passed an order of issuing summons to A1 and A2 on 30.10.2015. It is again illegal and for this reason, the complaint is liable to be quashed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  Crl.O.P.Nos.472 and 831 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.Nos.196, 397, 8670 and 8671 of 2016

11. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

12. Perusal of the records shows that in Crl.O.P.No.22158 of 2014, this Court directed the learned Magistrate to hold enquiry and then proceed further either under Section 203 Cr.P.C or under Section 204 IPC. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, immediately on production of xerox copy of sanction order, for prosecuting the second accused along with the original order, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ordered issuance of summons to A1 and A2. Then the case was posted to 10.07.2015, 07.08.2015 and on 04.09.2015. It is not known whether summons was issued to the accused/petitioners as per the order dated 19.06.2015 for the hearings on 10.07.2015, 07.08.2015 and 04.09.2015. It can be inferred that either summons have not been issued or summons issued was not served or summons issued was served, but the accused did not appear. The fact remains that the accused did not enter appearance for the hearings on 10.07.2015, 07.08.2015 and 04.09.2015. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  Crl.O.P.Nos.472 and 831 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.Nos.196, 397, 8670 and 8671 of 2016

14. Sanction order reads that “Now, therefore the Central Government in pursuance of the proviso to Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is pleased to accord sanction for inquiry & trial, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  Crl.O.P.Nos.472 and 831 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.Nos.196, 397, 8670 and 8671 of 2016 under Section 188 of Cr.P.C, 1973, of the offences allegedly committed by the offenders, namely (i) Dr. Dr.Saravanan Balagurusamy, (ii) Mrs. Sathyakala Rajangam and (iii) Dr.S.Karthikeyan in the complaint C.C.No.7661 of 2014 registered at the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate at Egmore, Chennai, for the offence either under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C., or under Section 204 of the I.P.C. for taking cognizance of the said offence by a court of competent jurisdiction in India.” It reads that sanction for prosecution was given for the offence either under Section 203 Cr.P.C or under Section 204 of IPC. Section 203 of Cr.P.C deals with dismissal of Criminal complaint. Section 204 of IPC deals with destruction of documents or electronic record to prevent it from production as evidence. It is true that there is no sanction given for the prosecution of the petitioners for the offence under Section 494 r/w.107 IPC. Despite issuing two corrigendums dated 26.05.2015 and 03.08.2018, the mistake had crept in the sanction order in omitting to mention section 494 r/w.107 IPC. Therefore, this Court finds that there is merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the sanctioning authority has not applied its mind https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  Crl.O.P.Nos.472 and 831 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.Nos.196, 397, 8670 and 8671 of 2016 before giving sanction.

15. Section 188 Cr.P.C prohibits the enquiry into or trial of an offence committed outside India, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. Immediately on filing the complaint and receiving the summons, Dr.S.Karthikeyan approached the Court in Crl.O.P.No.22158 of 2014 claiming that C.C.No.7661 of 2014 is not maintainable for lack of sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. This Court directed that the respondent may obtain sanction from Central Government under Section 188 Cr.P.C and produce the same before the learned Magistrate for conducting enquiry under Section 203 Cr.P.C or under Section 204 IPC. Respondent had also taken steps for obtaining sanction. The sanction order received, as indicated earlier, did not mention about the offence under Section 494 r/w.107 IPC. It is seen that there were already two corrigendums issued for making corrections in the sanction order. For the mistake committed by the officials in the grant of sanction, the case of the respondent cannot be thrown out. Possibility of issuing another corrigendum by the sanctioning authority for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  Crl.O.P.Nos.472 and 831 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.Nos.196, 397, 8670 and 8671 of 2016 incorporating the correct provision of law ie., Section 494 r/w.107 IPC in the sanction order cannot be ruled out before the enquiry or trial commences. If the respondent does not take any steps for correcting the sanction order, then it is open to the trial Court to pass appropriate orders including on the aspect of lack of sanction for prosecution for the offence under Section 494 r/w.107 IPC.