Allahabad High Court
Pawan And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 31 January, 2023
Bench: Gautam Chowdhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 79
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7295 of 2022
Petitioner :- Pawan And Another
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Dilip Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.
his petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the summoning order dated 12.02.2020 passed by learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 615 of 2019 (Leelu Vs. Pawan and others), whereby petitioners have been summoned to face trial under Section 420 I.P.C. as well as to set aside the Judgement and order dated 23.03.2021 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.12, District Meerut, whereby criminal revision no. 122 of 2020 filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that no offence against the petitioners is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
In reply to the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. has stated it has come in the application filed under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before C.J.M. Meerut that in connivance with the Lekhpal Pawan, Virendra and Kaalu, R/o Kinauni, District Meerut made a forged order of S.D.M. (Admn.), Meerut and have prevented the measurement of the land of the applicant. As such in the present case section 197 Cr.P.C. will not be attracted. He also placed the reliance upon a decision on Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Smt. Neera Yadav Vs. C.B.I. and another reported in 206(2) ADJ 4 (All) (FB) in which it has been said that,"no sanction is required under section 197 Cr.P.C.", Further placed the reliance in the Delhi High Court passed in W.P. (CRL) 643 of 2019 and CRL M.A. Nos, 4589 of 2019, 11013 of 2022, 16410 of 2022 Vinod Kumar Asthana Vs. C.B.I. where in it has been stated that:-
11. " No doubt it is held in various judgments the cognizance taken without sanction is bad but admittedly the process of closure of the proceedings at an initial stage has also not been appreciated see State through CBI vs. B.L.Verma and Another (1997) 10 SCC 772; Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya vs. Anand Athabhai Chaudhari and Others 2021 SCC Online SC 974 wherein it was held the directions of the High Court to drop the proceedings against the respondent on account of want of sanction under Section 197(1) Cr.P.C. was bad and should the competent authority hereafter grant sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., it will be perfectly valid and open to the petitioner herein to activate the prosecution against the respondent. Rather in Shantaben (supra) it was held the absence of sanction cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and rather to quash proceedings at this stage in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is rather impermissible. Even, if it is found in the absence of Section 197 Cr.P.C. the proceedings are vitiated, then also the Court may direct the authority to take sanction and then proceed, instead of completely quashing the entire proceedings. Same was the view taken in Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CBI (2021) 2 SCC 525.
12. Admittedly, in the present case the FIR was registered and the chargesheet was filed prior to the amendment. However, the case was listed Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:12.10.2022 16:50 on 30.07.2018 when cognizance was taken by the learned Special Judge, saying qua other accused, including the petitioner, sanction is not required."
Perusal of record shows that the petitioners have been summoned to face trial under the charged Sections against which, revision was filed which too has been dismissed. There is no illegality in the summoning order and the learned revisional Court too, after considering the entire aspects of the matter, dismissed the revision.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the impugned orders as well as the reliance made by learned A.G.A., this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any legal infirmity in the impugned orders, which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The prayer for quashing the impugned orders is refused.
The petition stands dismissed.
Office is directed to communicate the order passed by this Court to the concerned Court below forthwith.
Order Date :- 31.1.2023
RPD
