Allahabad High Court
Dr. Kafeel @ Dr. Kafeel Ahmad Khan vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 August, 2021
Bench: Gautam Chowdhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
A.F.R.
fu.kZ; vkj{k.k frfFk % 17&8&2021
fu.kZ; mn~?kks"k.kk frfFk % 26&8&2021
Court No. - 85
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8735 of 2021
Applicant :- Dr. Kafeel @ Dr. Kafeel Ahmad Khan
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajrshi Gupta,Dileep Kumar(Senior Adv.),Manish Singh,Nazrul Islam Jafri(Senior Adv.)
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
1& vkosnd dh vksj ls /kkjk 482 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr ;g vkosnu i=] eq0v0la0&700 lu~ 2019] vUrxZr /kkjk 153&,] 153&ch] 505 (2)] 109 Hkk0na0fo0] Fkkuk flfoy ykbUl] ftyk vyhx<++ esa izsf"kr vkjksi i= la0 055 lu 2020] fnukafdr 16&3&2020 ls mn~Hkwr okn la0 3250 lu 2020] LVsV olsZl Mk0 dQhy] tks eq[; U;kf;d eftLVzsV] vyhx<+ ds U;k;ky; esa yfEcr gS rFkk blesa ikfjr izlaKku vkns'k fn0 28&7&2020 ds fo:) nk;j fd;k x;k gSA
2& vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk Jh euh"k flag] lkEHkoh 'kqDyk ,oa muds ofj"B vf/koDrk Jh fnyhi dqekj rFkk foi{kh la0 1 dh vksj ls fo}ku vij 'kkldh; vf/koDrk Jh iratfy feJ ,oa fo+}ku vij egkf/koDrk Jh euh"k xks;y dks lquk rFkk i=koyh dk ifj'khyu fd;kA
3& okn ds rF; la{ksi esa bl izdkj gSa fd fn0 12&12&2019 dks ,l0 vkbZ0 eks0 nkfu'k] ih0,l0 flfoy ykbu] vyhx<+ }kjk Fkkuk flfoy ykbu] ftyk vyhx<+ esa ,d izkFkfedh iathd`r djk;h x;h fd " Jheku izHkkjh fujh{kd egksn;] Fkkuk flfoy ykbu] vyhx<+ egksn;] vkt fnukad 12&12&19 dks eq> ,l0vkbZ0 nkfu'k e; gejkgh dka0 2290 vf[kys'k ds lkFk ,0,e0;w0 ckc&,&l;~;n xsV ij 'kkfUr O;oLFkk M~;wVh yxk;h x;h FkhA le; djhc 18-30 cts ckc&,&l;~;n xsV ij ,0,e0;w0 ds djhc 600 Nk=ksa }kjk ckgj ls vk;s Mk0 dQhy o ;ksxsUnz ;kno izslhMsUV Lojkt bf.M;k }kjk lEcksf/kr fd;k x;kA Mk0 dQhy }kjk vius lacks/ku esa fn;s Hkk"k.k esa lHkk essa mifLFkr ,0,e0;w0 ds eqfLye Nk=ksa dks mudh /kkfeZd Hkkoukvksa dks HkM+dkus nwljs leqnk; ds izfr ?k`.kk 'k=qrk o O;euL; Hkkoukvksa dks HkM+dkus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k ftlls leqnk;ksa ds chp lkSgknZ cus jgus ij izfrdwy izHkko iM+uk o yksd 'kkfUr esa fo/u iM+us dh laHkkouk gSA Mk0 dQhy }kjk vius Hkk"k.kksa esa dgk x;k fd eksVk HkkbZ fl[kkrk gS gesa fd fgUnw cusxk ;k eqlyeku cusxk exj bUlku ugha cusxkA D;ksa dRy djus okys rw D;k tkus ftlds [kqn diM+s [kwu ds NhVksa ls nkx yxs gksa oks dkfry [kqn diM+s [kwu ds NhVksa ls nkx yxs gks oks dkfry ml nkx dks fNik dSls ik,xkA ftl fnu ls vkj0,l0,l0 iSnk gqbZ gS ml fnu ls mls lafo/kku ij fo'okl ugha gSA lh0,0ch0 ls rqEgsa nks;e ntsZ dk ukxfjd cuk;k tk jgk gS blds ckn ls ,u0vkj0lh0 ykxw djsaxs] rqEgsa ijs'kku djsaxsA rqEgkjs vCck dk lfVZfQdsV Bhd ugha gS dgdj rqEgsa nkSM+k;k tk;sxk] ;g gekjs otgwn dh yM+kbZ gSA gesa yM+uk iM+sxkA blds ckn Mk0 dQhy us vius Hkk"k.k esa dgk fd lh0,0ch0 ,slk gS fd iM+ksl esa pksjh djus okys pksj dks ge vius ?kj esa ukSdjh ns jgs gksA Mk0 dQhy ds bl Hkk"k.k ls lh0,0ch0 ds vUrxZr vkus okys fgUnw] fl[k] bZlkbZ] Qkjlh ds fy, ,0,e0;w0 ds eqfLye Nk=ksa esa ?k`.kk Qsykus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k] ftlls yksd 'kkfUr esa fo/u djus dh laHkkouk gSA blds ckn Mk0 dQhy us vius Hkk"k.k esa dgk fd vkj0vkj0,l0 ds Ldwyksa esa fl[kk;k tkrk gS fd nkM+h okys VsjksfjLV gksrs gSaA lh0,0ch0 ls vkidks fn[kk;k tk jgk gS fd ;g ns'k viuk ugha gS ,u0vkj0lh0 ds fy, rS;kj gks tkvks] ge iPphl djksM+ gS u rqe gesa Mjk ldrs gks] ge rqEgsa crk;saxs fd ns'k dSls pysxkA eq> mi fujh{kd }kjk Mk0 dQhy ds Hkk"k.kksa dh chfM;ks fjdksfMZx dh x;h ftldh lh0Mh0- layXu gSA Mk0 dQhy dk ;g Hkk"k.k ,0,e0;w0 ds eqfLye Nk=ksa esa /k`.kk QSykus dk iz;kl rFkk ,0,e0;w0 Nk=ksa dks mudh /kkfeZd Hkkoukvksa dks HkM+dkus] nwljs leqnk; ds izfr ?k`.kk] 'k=qrk o O;euL; Hkkoukvksa dks HkM+dkus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k] ftlls leqnk;ksa ds chp lkSgknZ cus jgus dk izfrdwy izHkko iM+uk o yksd 'kkfUr esa fo/u iM+us dh lEHkkouk gSA Mk0 dQhy ds fo:) vfHk;ksx iathd`r djus dh d`ik djsaA"
4& mDr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dh foospuk foospd }kjk dh x;h rFkk izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa fy[kk, x, vkjksi lgh ikrs gq, foospd }kjk Mk0 dQhy ds fo:) eq[; U;kf;d eftLVzsV] vyhx<+ ds U;k;ky; esa vkjksi i= la0 055 lu 2020] fnukafdr 16&3&2020 izsf"kr fd;k x;k] ftl ij U;k;ky; }kjk laKku dk vkns'k ikfjr djrs gq, ntZ jftLVj djus ,oa ryc djus lacaf/kr vkns'k fn0 28&7&2020 ikfjr fd;k x;k] ftlls {kqC/k gksdj vkosnd dh vksj lss /kkjk 482 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr ;g vkosnu i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA
5& vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k dk dFku gS fd vkosnd ch0 vkj0 Mh0 esfMdy dkyst] xksj[kiqj esa ysDpjj ds in ij dk;Zjr gSA fn0 [email protected] vxLr] 2017 dks ch0 vkj0 Mh0 esfMdy dkyst] xksj[kiqj esa vpkud fyfDoM vkDlhtu dh lIykbZ ckf/kr gq;h] ftlds dkj.k cgqr ls cPpksa dh e`R;q gks x;h] ml fnu vkosnd vodk'k ij Fkk] fdUrq ,d MkDVj gksus ds ukrs mlus vkDlhtu flysUMj dh O;oLFkk vius [kpsZ ij izkbosV fd;k rFkk 3&4 lkS cPpksa dh tku mlus cpkbZ] rFkk og izkbosV lIyk;lZ ,oa izkbosV gkfLiVy ds laidZ essa jgkA blds ckotwn Hkh mls fn0 22&8&2017 dks fuyafcr dj fn;k x;k rFkk fpfdRlk f'k{kk ,oa izf'k{k.k] m0 iz0] y[kum }kjk Fkkuk dksrokyh gtjrxat] ftyk y[kum es mlds ,oa vU; vf/kdkfj;ksa ds fo:) fn0 23&8&2017 dks izkFkfedh ntZ djk nh x;hA vkosnd ds fo:) vkDlhtu dh deh ds laca/k esa dksbZ fo'oluh; lk{; ugha FkkA blds ckn vkosnd dks fn0 2&9&2017 dks fxjQ~rkj dj fy;k x;k] vkosnd dks fn0 12&9&2017 dks vkjksi i= feyk] vkosnd dbZ ekg dkjkxkj esa fu:) jgk rFkk tekur ij eqDr gksus ds ckn vkosnd foHkkxh; tkWp djus okys lacaf/kr vf/kdkjh ds ikl yxk, x, vkjksiksa dh tkudkjh djus x;k] blds ckn vkosnd us fuyacu vkns'k ds f[kykQ mPp U;k;ky; vk;k rFkk ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; Hkh x;k ,oa bl e/; dksfoM&19 dk nkSj Hkh vk x;k] ftlds ckn mlus rFkkdfFkr eq0v0la0&700 lu~ 2019] vUrxZr /kkjk 153&,] 153&ch] 505 (2)] 109 Hkk0na0fo0] Fkkuk flfoy ykbUl] ftyk vyhx<++ esa izsf"kr vkjksi i= la0 055 lu 2020] fnukafdr 16&3&2020 ls mn~Hkwr okn la0 3250 lu 2020] LVsV olsZl Mk0 dQhy] tks eq[; U;kf;d eftLVzsV] vyhx<+ ds U;k;ky; esa yfEcr gS rFkk blesa ikfjr izlaKku vkns'k fn0 28&7&2020 ds fo:)
/kkjk 482 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr ;g vkosnu i= izLrqr fd;kA
6& vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k us rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd /kkjk 196 na0iz0la0 dh mi/kkjk 1 (v) esa ;g izkfo/kkfur gS fd U;k;ky; dks /kkjk 153&v] 153&c] 505 (2) Hkk0na0fo0 esa vijk/k dk laKku ysus ds iwoZ fdlh O;fDr ds vfHk;kstu gsrq dsUnz ljdkj vFkok jkT; ljdkj vFkok ftykf/kdkjh }kjk iwoZ vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr ysuk vko';d gS] ,slh iwoZ Lohd`[email protected] ds fcuk lEcfU/kr vijk/kksa ds vfHk;kstu gsrq laKku ugha fy;k tk ldrk gS rFkk fcuk iwoZ vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr ds laKku ysus ds vkns'k dks voS/kkfud ekuk tk,xkA mudk dFku gS fd /kkjk 196 ,oa 196&, na0iz0la0 ds izkfo/kku vkKkid (ck/;dkjh) izd`fr ds gSaA iz'uxr okn esa eq[; U;kf;d eftLVzsV] vyhx<+ }kjk ikfjr iz'uxr vkns'k fn0 28&7&2020] ftlds }kjk vkjksi i= dks ntZ jftLVj djrs gq, vijk/k /kkjk 153&v] 153&c] 505 (2) ,oa 109 Hkk0na0fo0 ds vUrxZr laKku fy;k x;k ,oa vkosnd dks rych vkns'k }kjk vkgwr fd;k x;k rFkk ;g laKku ysus ,oa rych vkns'k ikfjr djus ds iwoZ dsUnz ljdkj vFkok jkT; ljdkj vFkok ftykf/kdkjh ls dksbZ Lohd`fr ugha yh x;hA bl laca/k esa mudh vksj ls lacaf/kr U;k;ky; ds le{k Application For Information (Chapter IX Rule 1F) izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj mlesa iz'u iwNk x;k Fkk fd D;k okn la0 3250 lu 2020 esa vfHk;kstu }kjk vkjksi i= nkf[ky djus ls iwoZ dsUnz ljdkj ;k jkT; ljdkj ;k ftykf/kdkjh] vyhx<+ ls /kkjk 196 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr (Sanction) Lohd`fr fy;k x;k gS] ftl ij tokc "NO" fn;k x;k gSA vr% iwoZ vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr ds vHkko esa ,oa eq[; U;kf;d eftLVzsV] vyhx<+ ds U;k;ky; esa yfEcr mijksDr laiw.kZ dk;Zokgh ,oa laKku ds laca/k esa ikfjr iz'uxr vkns'k vikLr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA
7& vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa eku~uh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk Manoj Rai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1999 (1) SCC 728 esa izfrikfnr fof/k O;oLFkk ds izLrj 2 dh vksj U;k;ky; dk /;ku vkd`"V fd;k] tks fuEuor~ gS %&
"2. Since the learned counsel for the State fairly states, on instructions, that no sanction was given in accordance with Section 196(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code to prosecute the appellants for the offence under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code, we allow this appeal and quash the impugned proceedings. Let the written instructions received by the learned counsel for the respondent-State in this regard be kept on record as desired by him."
8& bl lEcU/k essa vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k us mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn dh };&U;k;ihB }kjk Mohd. Waris @ Raza Vs. State, Jail Appeal No. 8326 of 2007 decided on 5.8.2019 ds izLrj 33] 34] 35] 36 ,oa 37 dh vksj U;k;ky; dk /;ku vkd`"V fd;k] tks fd fuEuor~ gS %&
"33. A perusal of Section 196 Cr.P.C., clearly shows that it contemplates a prior sanction from Central Government or State Government before cognizance is taken of any offence punishable under Chapter-VI I.P.C. Therefore, apparently, it cannot be disputed and learned AGA has also fairly stated that as per requirement of Section 196 Cr.P.C., no cognizance could have been taken of offence punishable under Chapter-VI I.P.C. unless prior sanction from Central Government or State Government is obtained.
34. In the present case, opportunity was granted to State to show whether such sanction was given of categorical statement has been made by learned AGA before this Court that no such sanction was granted or even sought to be obtained, hence, question of grant by competent authority does not arise. Prosecution, in fact, strangely proceeded in complete and absolute ignorance of Section 196 Cr.P.C. It is really surprising that prosecution was not aware that for offences punishable under Chapter-VI I.P.C., there was/is a statutory requirement of obtaining prior sanction of Competent Authority. No efforts at all were made to obtain the same.
35. Proceeding further now we have to examine, "whether requirement of ''prior sanction' under Section 196 Cr.P.C. is mandatory" and secondly, if no such issue was raised before Magistrate, who committed proceedings to Court of Sessions/Trial Court, whether it will stop appellants from raising issue for the first time in appeal, or flaw is so inherent it goes to the root of the matter and even in appeal, it can be taken for the first time and may vitiates Trial and conviction.
36. The object of Section 196 Cr.P.C. is to ensure prosecution after due consideration by appropriate authority so that frivolous or needless prosecution is avoided. To appreciate the nature of "sanction" contemplated under Section 196 Cr.P.C., in correct perspective, it would be appropriate to bear in mind and examine Section 465 Cr.P.C., which reads as under :-
465. Finding or sentence when reversible by reason of error, omission irregularity.
(1) Subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, no finding, sentence or order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered by a Court of appeal, confirmation or revision on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under this Code, or any error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution, unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.
(2) In determining whether any error, omission or irregularity in any proceeding under this Code, or any error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution has occasioned a failure of justice, the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings.
(Emphasis added)
37. A perusal of Section 465 Cr.P.C. shows that it runs into two parts; (i) "on any error, omission or irregularity", and three words have been used and it is said that the same will not justify setting aside of conviction in appeal or revision etc. but with reference to "sanction" only two words "error or irregularity" have been used and the word "omission" has not been mentioned. Meaning thereby, in the cases where sanction is required, if there is an error or irregularity in the "sanction", then conviction or finding will not be reversed in appeal or revision. It contemplates that sanction is there but there is some error or irregularity in granting sanction. If there is a complete "omission" of sanction, then in our view, Section 465 Cr.P.C. will not come into picture and will not help prosecution. It, therefore, leads to irrestible inference that if there is no sanction, whatsoever, by competent authority as contemplated in Section 196 Cr.P.C., it will be a serious flaw and an illegality and would vitiate the entire proceedings."
9& vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us U;k;ky; dk /;ku Swaraj Thackeray Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2008 CRI. L. J. 3780 & Sarfaraz Sheikh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh esa izfrikfnr fof/k O;oLFkkvksa dh vksj Hkh U;k;ky; dk /;ku vkd`"V fd;k] ftuesa voj U;k;ky; ds le{k yfEcr okn dh dk;Zokgh dks vikLr djrs gq,] izdj.k dks 196 na0iz0la0 dk vuqikyu djus ds i'pkr xq.k&nks"k ij izlaKku dk vkns'k ikfjr djus gsrq izfrizsf"kr djus dk funsZ'k fn;k x;k gSA
Swaraj Thackeray Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2008 CRI. L. J. 3780 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; dk izLrj 14 ,oa 15 fuEuor gS %&
"14. Regarding the points raised by the petitioner that prior sanction under Section 196, CrPC was must before taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 153-A and 153-B IPC, I find that from a bare perusal of Section 196(1)(a) and (1-A)(a), quoted herein above, it is absolutely clear that there is complete bar for taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 153-A, 153-B, Section 295-A or Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 505,IPC.
In the present case, the cognizance of the offences under Sections 153-A, 153-B and 504 IPC has been taken by the learned Magistrate. There is no dispute of the fact that prior to taking cognizance of the offences alleged under Sections 153-A and 153-B IPC, no sanction either of the Central Government or of the State Government was taken. The decision cited by the counsel for the petitioner in the case of Shailbhadra Shah and Ors. v. Swami Krishna Bharati and Anr. of Gujarat High Court reported in 1981 Cr LJ 113, supports his contention that prior sanction either of the State Government or of the Central Government is necessary before taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 153-A and 153-B of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, in such a situation, it is held that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 153-A and 153-B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner in absence of any sanction as envisaged under Section 196(1)(a)(1-A)(a) CrPC. Consequently, that part of the impugned order taking cognizance for the aforesaid two offences, i.e., under Sections 153-A and 153-B, IPC only by the learned Magistrate cannot be sustained and, as such, is hereby quashed.
15. So far as for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 504 IPC, taken by the learned Magistrate, there is no such legal bar for taking cognizance of the aforesaid Section 504 IPC, and I find that the learned Magistrate after full application of mind and on consideration of the materials on record has taken cognizance of the offences under Section 504 IPC also and, therefore, the same does not require any interference by this Court."
Sarfaraz Sheikh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh esa ikfjr fu.kZ; dk vfUre izLrj fuEuor gS %&
"The offence under sections 153-A and 153-B IPC are of the nature of promoting enmity between different groups on the ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity etc; or any act which is imputation, assertions THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC. No.174/2017 (Sarfaraz Sheikh vs. The State of M.P.) prejudicial to national-integration in place of public worship the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities and as such are offence against the public at large and State. The inclusion of offence under sections 147and 149 of IPC, in the charge-sheet, in fact, are in conjunction with such offence under section 153 A and 153 B IPC are inseparable. Consequently, for want of sanction for offence under sections 153 A and 153 B of IPC as on the date of cognizance on 05.03.2016, the prosecution continued pursuant to the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is accordingly quashed. However, based on subsequent sanction on 16.08.2016, the respondent/State is always at liberty to take recourse to law for filing supplementary charge-sheet."
10& fo}ku vij egkf/koDrk Jh euh"k xks;y ,oa fo}ku vij 'kkldh; vf/koDrk Jh iratfy feJ us vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k ds rdksZ dk [k.Mu djrs gq, rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd vkosnd ,d ljdkjh MkDVj gSa blfy, /kkjk 197 na0iz0la0 ds izkfo/kku Hkh ykxw gksrs gSa] rFkk /kkjk 482 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr vkosnu i= izLrqr djds vfHk;kstu vuqefr ds vk/kkj ij lEiw.kZ dk;Zokgh ds fujLrhdj.k dh ;kpuk iks"k.kh; ugha gSA vkosnd }kjk laKku ds Lrj ij ;k vkjksi fojfpr gksus ds volj ij vfHk;kstu vuqefr u gksus ds vk/kkj ij mUekspu ;kpuk dk iw.kZ vf/kdkj gSA mudk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd /kkjk 196 ,oa 197 na0iz0la0 ds izkfo/kku dksVZ }kjk izlaKku ysus ds lUnHkZ esa yxHkx leku gSa] ,sls esa fo/kkf;dk dh ea'kk ds vuq:i izkfo/kku 197 Hkh ykxw gksaxs rFkk vkosnd ds izdj.k esa /kkjk 196] 197 na0iz0la0 ds izkfo/kkuksa dks la;qDr :i ls i<+us dh vko';drk gS rFkk laKku ysus ds ckn vfHk;kstu vuqefr izkIr gksus ls lEiw.kZ dk;Zokgh nwf"kr ugha gks tk,xh rFkk bl izdj.k esa fn0 27&5&2021 dks vuqefr ysus ds i'pkr mls voj U;k;ky; esa fn0 3&8&2021 dks nkf[ky dj fn;k x;k gSA mudk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd /kkjk 460 (C) esa mfYyf[kr izkfo/kku fdlh vijk/k dk laKku vxj /kkjk 190 (1) es Dykt (A) ;k (B) ds rgr eftLVzsV }kjk ys fy;k x;k gS rks og flQZ bjjsxqyj gksxh vkSj izkslhfMax dks nwf"kr ugha djsxhA izLrqr izdj.k esa iqfyl fjiksVZ esa /kkjk 190 (1) B esa eftLVzsV }kjk fn0 28&7&2020 dks izlaKku fy;k x;k gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa lacaf/kr eftLVzsV }kjk ikfjr fd;k x;k laKku dk vkns'k fcYdqy lgh gS rFkk mlesa gLr{ksi djus dh dksbZ vko';drk ugha gSA mUgksaus vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa eku~uh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk Bakhshish Singh Brar Vs. Gurmej Kumar and another (1987) 4 Supreme Court Cases 663 esa izfrikfnr fof/k O;oLFkk ds izLrj 4 dh vksj U;k;ky; dk /;ku vkd`"V fd;k] tks fuEuor~ gS %&
"4. There are rival versions involved in this case. The question was whether without the sanction under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the proceedings could go on. It is quite apparent that as a result of the alleged search and raid, which was conducted by the petitioner in discharge of his official duties certain injuries, which are described as grievous, injuries had been inflicted on the complainant and one of the alleged offenders had died. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner is a Government servant. Admittedly, there was no sanction under section 197 of the Cr. P.C. had been taken. The trial in this case is one of the offences mentioned under section 196 of the Cr. P.C. The contention of the petitioner was that under section 196 of the Cr. P.C. the cognizance of the offence could not be taken nor the trial proceeded without the sanction of the appropriate authorities. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala after consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case in view of the observations of this Court in Pukhraj v. State of Rajasthan and another, [1974] 1 S.C.R. S59 that unless cognizance is taken and the facts and in the circumstances and the nature of the allegations involved in this case are gone into the question whether the raiding party exceeded its limits or power while acting in the official duties cannot be determined. The learned Judge observed after gathering the materials and some evidence, it would be possible to determine whether the petitioner while acting in the discharge of his duties as a police officer had exceeded the limit of his official capacity in inflicting grievous injuries on the accused and causing death to the other accused."
esjs fopkj ls mDr fu.kZ; esa /kkjk 196 na0iz0la0 ,oa /kkjk 197 na0iz0la0 dks ,d lkFk fopkfjr fd;k x;k gS rFkk orZeku ekeys esa flQZ /kkjk 196 na0iz0la0 fopkfjr fd;k tk jgk gS] blfy, mDr fu.kZ; esas mfYyf[kr rF;] orZeku izdj.k ls fHkUu gSaA
11& fo}ku vij egkf/koDrk us vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa eku~uh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk CBI Vs. B.A.Srinivasan (2020) 2 Supreme Court Cases 153 esa izfrikfnr fof/k O;oLFkk dh vksj U;k;ky; dk /;ku vkd`"V fd;kA fdUrq ;g fu.kZ; /kkjk 197 na0iz0la0 ds laca/k esas ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] tcfd orZeku ekeys esa flQZ /kkjk 196 na0iz0la0 fopkfjr fd;k tk jgk gS] blfy, mDr fu.kZ; esas mfYyf[kr rF;] orZeku izdj.k esa ykxw ugha gksaxsA
12& fo}ku vij egkf/koDrk us vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa eku~uh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk Dharmesh @ Nanu Nitinbhai Shah Vs. State of Gujarat (2022) 45 ACC 519 esa izfrikfnr fof/k O;oLFkk dh vksj U;k;ky; dk /;ku vkd`"V fd;kA fdUrq mDr fu.kZ; ds rF; orZeku izdj.k ds rF;ksa ls fHkUu gSaA
13& fo}ku vij egkf/koDrk us vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa eku~uh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk Devinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab Through CBI (2016) 12 SCC 87 esa izfrikfnr fof/k O;oLFkk ds izLrj 39.8 dh vksj U;k;ky; dk /;ku vkd`"V fd;k] tks fuEuor~ gS %&
"39.8. Question of sanction may arise at any stage of proceedings. On a police or judicial inquiry or in course of evidence during trial. Whether sanction is necessary or not may have to be determined from stage to stage and material brought on record depending upon facts of each case. Question of sanction can be considered at any stage of the proceedings. Necessity for sanction may reveal itself in the course of the progress of the case and it would be open to accused to place material during the course of trial for showing what his duty was. Accused has the right to lead evidence in support of his case on merits."
fdUrq mDr fu.kZ; ds rF; orZeku izdj.k ds rF;ksa ls fHkUu gSa] blfy, mDr fu.kZ; dk dksbZ ykHk mUgsa ugha fey ldrk gSA
14& eSaus mHk; i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrkvksa ds rdksZ ds ifjizs{; esa i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ,oa muds }kjk] ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ,oa mPp U;k;ky;ksa }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ;ksa ,oa fof/k O;oLFkkvksa dk voyksdu fd;kA
15& bl izdj.k ds fuLrkj.k gsrq /kkjk 196 dks vorfjr fd;k tkuk vko';d gS] tks fuEuor gS %&
"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 153A, ( 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 108A 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.]
(2) No Court shall take cognizance of the offence of any criminal conspiracy punishable under section 120B 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 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 (1A) and the District Magistrate may, before according sanction under sub- section (1A) 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."
16& esjs fopkj ls vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k ds rdksa ,oa muds }kjk vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa Swaraj Thackeray Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2008 CRI. L. J. 3780 & Sarfaraz Sheikh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh esa izfrikfnr fof/k O;oLFkkvks ds izdk'k esa ,oa /kkjk 196 na0iz0la0 dh mi/kkjk 1 (v) ds izkfo/kkuksa ds vuqlkj /kkjk 153&v] 153&c] 505 (2) Hkk0na0fo0 esa vijk/k dk laKku ysus ds iwoZ dsUnz ljdkj vFkok jkT; ljdkj vFkok ftykf/kdkjh }kjk iwoZ vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr ugha yh x;h gS rFkk fo}ku eftLVzsV us izlaKku dk vkns'k ikfjr djrs le; lqlaxr izkfo/kkuksa dk leqfpr vuqikyu ugha fd;kA
17& rn~uqlkj lacaf/kr voj U;k;ky; dh dk;Zokgh esa T;knk foyEc u gks] blfy, /kkjk 482 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr nk;j ;g vkosnu i= Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS rFkk eq0v0la0&700 lu~ 2019] vUrxZr /kkjk 153&,] 153&ch] 505(2)] 109 Hkk0na0fo0] Fkkuk flfoy ykbUl] ftyk vyhx<++ esa izsf"kr vkjksi i= la0 055 lu 2020] fnukafdr 16&3&2020 ls mn~Hkwr okn la0 3250 lu 2020] LVsV olsZl Mk0 dQhy] tks eq[; U;kf;d eftLVzsV] vyhx<+ ds U;k;ky; esa yfEcr gS rFkk blesa ikfjr izlaKku vkns'k fn0 28&7&2020 dh dk;Zokgh vikLr dh tkrh gS rFkk izdj.k dks eq[; U;kf;d eftLVzsV] vyhx<+ ds U;k;ky; esa bl funsZ'k ds lkFk izfrizsf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd /kkjk 196 (v) na0iz0la0 ds izkfo/kkuksa ds vuqlkj dsUnz ljdkj vFkok jkT; ljdkj vFkok ftykf/kdkjh }kjk iwoZ vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr izkIr gksus ij gh vkosnd ds fo:) mijksDr /kkjkvksa ds vUrxZr izlaKku dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tk;A
18& dk;kZy; dks funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd bl vkns'k dh ,d izfrfyfi lacaf/kr voj U;k;ky; dks vfoyEc Hkstuk lqfuf'pr fd;k tk;A
fn0 % 26&08&2021
ds0lh0flag
