The Chhattisgarh High Court held that it is not mandatory for the Magistrate to record reasons in detail at the time of issuing process against the accused persons and thus the trial Court is not bound to pass a detailed order to meet the evidence as if it is going to conduct a mini-trial
This decision was made while dismissing a petition challenging the order dated 29th April 2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision, in which the revision filed by the petitioners was rejected.
Brief Facts:
A complaint was made by one Bahadur Singh alleging therein that his brother respondent no. 1 Dhirendar Singh obtained employment on an ex-gratia basis on 21.12.1989, by giving a false declaration about his age. Thereafter, after completion of the said D.E., the services of Respondent No.1 were terminated by the Disciplinary Authority. Being aggrieved by the said termination order, the complainant/respondent No.1 had filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the petitioners and respondent No. 2. The Court of JMFC passed the order in the said complaint case which was also challenged in Criminal Revision. In Criminal Revision, the decision was affirmed. Hence, this petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Court of JMFC took cognizance in the matter on 13/07/2022 without obtaining sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. which is a mandatory requirement to prosecute a public servant. He argued that Section 197 Cr.P.C. provides protection to public servants from prosecution for acts performed in their official capacity without prior sanction from the appropriate government authority and the fundamental logic behind this provision is to ensure that the public officials can perform their official functions without fear of frivolous or vexatious legal actions.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the matter is pending before the Court of JMFC at the very preliminary stage where only the notices have been issued to the petitioners and the case is still pending. He argued that the petitioners had already been granted Anticipatory Bail by the Court of Sessions. He further argued that while registering the complaint case, it is not mandatory for the Magistrate to record reasons in detail at the time of issuing process against the accused persons.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that there must be a connection between official duty and the alleged offense. Section 197 Cr.P.C. does not extend its protection cover to every act by a public servant in service to restrict its scope of operation to only those acts or actions that are done by a public servant in the discharge of official duty.
The Court observed that it is not mandatory for the Magistrate to record reasons in detail at the time of issuing process against the accused persons and thus the trial Court is not bound to pass a detailed order to meet the evidence as if it is going to conduct a mini-trial. It is open to the Court to appreciate the evidence at the stage of cognizance only there must be a judicial application of mind for the purpose of proceeding in a complaint case. The Court said that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial Court at the appropriate stage and this Court cannot nip it in the bud at this stage.
The decision of the Court:
The Chhattisgarh High Court, dismissing the petition, held that there is no illegality in the impugned order of both Courts below.
Case Title: Virendra Dhawan v. Dhirendra Singh & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Arvind Kumar Verma
Case no.: CRMP No. 1761 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Kashif Shakeel
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Ajit Singh and Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan
