Sachin Singhal vs Superintendent Of Police
2021 Latest Caselaw 10444 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 494/2019

Sachin Singhal S/o Rajkumar Singhal, Aged About 28 Years, 99, Kalali Mohalla, Chhotisadri, District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan 312604.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Superintendent Of Police, Sp Office, District Pratapgarh (Raj).

2.       State, Through PP
                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Sumit Singhal
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. A.R. Choudhary, PP



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

                                Judgment

Date of Pronouncement :-                               09/07/2021

Judgment Reserved on :-                                05/07/2021

The petitioner Sachin Singhal has approached this Court

through this revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. for

assailing the order dated 08.03.2019 passed by learned Addl.

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhoti Sadari, Pratapgarh whereby, the

private complaint preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

It may be mentioned here that the complaint at hand was a

second complaint on same facts filed by the petitioner in the court

below. The previous complaint was rejected vide order dated

07.03.2017 which attained finality as the same was not challenged

any further. It may be further mentioned here that the complaint

(2 of 5) [CRLR-494/2019]

of 2015 came to be filed by the petitioner-complainant by

arraigning the then Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh as an

accused. The petitioner complainant sought prosecution of the

Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh for the offences under

Sections 119, 155, 156 & 166 IPC alleging inter alia that he had

sent a fax to the S.P. Office, Pratapgarh on 04.07.2014

complaining that his family had been attacked, his house was

trespassed into and ransacked but the police officers of the Police

Station Chhoti Sadari did not pay any heed to the complaint made

by the petitioner in this regard. The petitioner herein alleged in his

complaint that by failing to take action on his fax, the

Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh was responsible for the

above offences. The complainant examined himself under Section

200 Cr.P.C. in support of the complaint. No document whatsoever

was filed or proved by the complainant in support of the complaint

lodged in the year 2015 and accordingly, the same was rejected

vide order dated 07.03.2017. The trial court also held that the

complaint could not be proceeded in absence of previous sanction

for prosecution, mandatorily required under Section 197 Cr.P.C. Be

that as it may. The petitioner did not challenge the order dated

07.03.2017 and instead lodged a second complaint in the court

below which has also been rejected by order dated 08.03.2019

which is assailed in this revision.

Shri Singhal, learned counsel representing the petitioner

complainant, vehemently and fervently urged that the earlier

complaint was rejected because the petitioner could not file

relevant documents in support thereof whereas in the second

complaint all relevant documents, to be specific, the fax sent to

(3 of 5) [CRLR-494/2019]

the S.P. Office, Pratapgarh was annexed and hence, the trial court

ought not to have rejected the complaint of the petitioner. In

support of his contentions, Shri Singhal placed reliance on the

following judgments:

1. Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivlingappa Konjalgi &

Ors. reported in AIR 1976 SC 1947

2. Jialal Sharma vs. Mahadev Prasad reported in 1982

CRLJ 1913

3. Ashok Kumar vs. Mariappan reported in 1993 CRLJ 2780

4. Deputy Chief Controller of Imports & Exports vs.

Roshanlal Agarwal reported in (2003) 2 SCR 621.

5. Jagdish Ram vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2004) 2

SCR 846

6. Bhushan Kumar vs. State reported in AIR 2012 SC 1747

& urged that at the stage of issuance of process, the learned

Magistrate is only required to consider allegations of the

complainant and evidence led in support thereof. A satisfaction is

to be recorded only regarding a prima facie case being made out

and it was absolutely unwarranted for the learned Magistrate to

have rejected the petitioner's complaint on hyper technical issues

and by making a detailed discussion as if the case was being

finally decided.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions

advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on

record.

(4 of 5) [CRLR-494/2019]

Suffice it to say that the subsequent complaint filed by the

petitioner had to fail because the same was not based on any new

material. While lodging the first complaint, the petitioner did not

file the so-called fax on which his entire case was based. Even, the

contents of the fax were not described by the petitioner in the

complaint. Not only this, the petitioner did not specifically allege

that the fax was, as a matter of fact, received at the SP office

while filing the second complaint. For the sake of repetition, it may

be mentioned here that the petitioner did not challenge the order

dated 07.03.2017 by which his previous complaint with the same

allegations was rejected by the court below on merits.

Be that as it may. In the second complaint, the petitioner did

not lead any evidence under Section 200/202 Cr.P.C. on the basis

whereof, the complaint could have been proceeded with.

Furthermore, in the present revision, the petitioner has not

impleaded the Officer sought to be prosecuted in the complaint.

Impleadment has been made in form of "Superintendent of Police,

Pratapgarh" which is a post and not a person. Thus, the mandate

of Section 401 (2) Cr.P.C. has not been complied with by the

petitioner in this revision. That apart, I am of the view that even if

the allegations levelled by the petitioner in his highly belated

complaint, which came to be lodged after nearly ten months of

the alleged incident are seen, manifestly, the same relate to

discharge of official duties by an officer in the rank of

Superintendent of Police and the prosecution of such officer could

not have been allowed without previous sanction mandatorily

required under Section 197 Cr.P.C. This was one of the precise

grounds for rejection of the petitioner's complaints, past and

(5 of 5) [CRLR-494/2019]

present. The findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned

order dated 08.03.2019 are absolutely justified and do not call for

any interference therein. Hence, the revision fails and is hereby

dismissed as being devoid of merit.

The original record shall be returned to the trial court

forthwith.

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J Sudhir Asopa/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)