Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamal Singh Senghar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 October, 2024
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51142
1 MCRC-15381-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 14th OF OCTOBER, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 15381 of 2024
KAMAL SINGH SENGHAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for applicants.
Shri Pramod Choubey - Government Advocate for respondent No.1-State.
Shri Neeraj Jain - Advocate for respondent No.2.
ORDER
Applicants have filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure making a prayer for quashing of order dated 12/12/2022
contained in Annexure A-1 and order dated 20/03/2024 by which charges
have been framed against applicants and also charges which are framed by
the trial Court.
2. Counsel appearing for applicants submitted that applicant No.1 is
Investigating-Officer and applicant No.2 is Constable. After completion of
investigation it was found that applicants do not have any role, therefore,
closure report was filed on 22/07/2021. Said closure report was accepted by
trial Court on 15/09/2021. It is also submitted that State has refused to grant
sanction for prosecution of applicants vide order dated 18/06/2019. It is
submitted that since closure report has been accepted and State has not
granted any sanction for prosecution of applicants, therefore, trial Court has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51142
2 MCRC-15381-2024
committed an error of law in adding applicants as accused exercising its
power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and further to frame charges against
them. It is submitted that provision under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. lays down
that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence committed by public
servant in course of his official duty without previous sanction from State
Government. It is submitted that applicants are public servants, therefore,
cognizance of offence without previous sanction from State Government is
barred. No sanction has been granted and closure report has also been
accepted. In these circumstances trial Court has committed an error of law in
exercising its power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and to frame charges.
Counsel appearing for applicants relied upon the judgments passed by Apex
Court in case of Indra Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2021 (8) SCC
768 and Surinderjit Singh Mand & Another Vs. State of Punjab & Another,
reported in 2016 (8) SCC 722. In these circumstances it is prayed that the
impugned orders be set aside.
3. Government Advocate appearing for State as well as counsel
appearing for objector are unable to defend the prosecution case that without
previous sanction and after accepting closure report how trial Court
proceeded to frame charges against the applicants and to make them accused
in the case.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Provisions of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is mandatory in nature. Court
cannot take cognizance or apply its mind to proceed against an accused
person who is public servant and offence is said to have been committed by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51142
3 MCRC-15381-2024
him during course of official duty. In this case applicants are public servant.
Allegations are made that they committed delay in taking the injured person
to Hospital, which resulted in death. Act of applicants is said to have been
committed while acting as public servant and doing Government duty.
Sanction for prosecution of applicants is mandatory. No sanction has been
obtained and further closure report has been accepted by Court.
6. In these circumstances, trial Court has committed an error in
framing the charges against the applicants and also to make them accused
exercising power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. In view of above, petition
filed by applicants is allowed and orders dated 12/12/2022 and 20/03/2024
are quashed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
as
