SARFARAZ SHEIKH Vs. THE STATE OF M.P.
LAWS(MPH)-2018-4-193
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on April 17,2018

Sarfaraz Sheikh Appellant
VERSUS
The State Of M.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

ROHIT ARYA,J. - (1.) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed seeking quashment of criminal proceedings committed to the trial court by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar on 03.10.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No.199/2016 in the light of the order of the coordinate Bench of this Court on 12.09.2016 passed in M.Cr.C. No.6979/2016 paving way for prosecution of applicant under sections 147, 153/149, 153-A/149 and 188 IPC.
(2.) Learned senior counsel has made following submissions:- (i) The offence under sections 124-A and 153-A IPC alongwith offence under sections 147, 153, 149 and 188 IPC were sought to be tried by the Judicial Magistrate First Class without sanction of the competent authority i.e. State Government as contemplated under section 196 Cr.P.C., 1973 The applicant, therefore, challenged the sustainability of the proceedings before this Court by filing M.Cr.C. No.6979/2016. This Court while accepting the contention, as aforesaid though discharged the applicant from offence under section 124-A IPC for want of sanction, but due to slip, the entire prosecution was not quashed related to offence under section 153-A IPC as well as other sections, viz; 147, 149 and 188 IPC. Therefore, the applicant had to again approach this Court by filing the instant M.Cr.C., seeking quashment of the proceedings. (ii) Though the prior sanction is required for taking cognizance of offence under sections 153-A and 124-A IPC, but as the other offence alleged against the applicant that of 'formation of unlawful assembly' with intent to rioting promoting enmity between groups on the ground of objection raised etc; are in connection with the aforesaid offence, therefore, even offence under the said sections could be taken cognizance for want of sanction. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Pawan Kumar v. Ruldu Ram, (1982) Law Suit (P&H) 143 to bolster his submission and relevant portion of order reads as under:- "8. As regards the offence under Section 504, Penal Code, it appears to be based on the assertion in the complaint that the petitioner had abused the complainant. Abusing a citizen by a public servant certainly does come within the performance of lawer's duty as such. But, where the public servant is prosecuted simultaneously for more than one offence and if any offence out of them is such which requires sanction, then without the prior sanction of the competent authority, the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of all the offences against that public servant and try him for those offences."
(3.) Under such circumstances, learned senior counsel prays for quashment of the criminal proceedings.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.