Decided on January 04,1983

M.R.DHAWAN Respondents

Referred Judgements :-



M. L. JAIN, J. - (1.)This order will dispose of three petitions Cr.M. (M) 99, 91 and 119 of 1982.
(2.)The respondent 'filed on 4-6-1980 a complaint against 8 accused persons under sections 166, 167, 218, 343, 500 and 120-B Indian Penal Code . The complainant examined himself and ten other witnesses. A question arose before the learned Magistrate whether any section for- the prosecution was or was not necessary under section 197 Criminal Procedure Code . The learned Metropolitan Magistrate did not consider that any sanction, for prosecution was necessary and directed issue of process against the accused by his order dated 9-9-1980. One of the accused Shri V. V. Nagarkar challenged this issue of process by a petition Cr.M.(M) 49/81 in this court. My decision in that petition was given on 23-7-1981 vide V. V. Nagarkar v. M. R. Dhawan, 20 (1981) DLT 203(1). I reproduce the relevant conclusions:
"I, therefore, hold that no cognizance of the offences can be taken against the petitioner unless sanction of the appropriate Government is obtained. It should not be difficult to obtain such a sanction. In case it is refused unreasonably, then I think the complainant can move appropriate court for a direction to the Government to issue the necessary sanction. Now, there is no more any need to examine the question of sanction under section 196 Criminal Procedure Code . It is also not necessary to go into the second question whether any case against petitioner is at all made out or not, for, I have determined the matter on the presumption that the alleged offences have been committed. Consequently, I accept this petition and quash the imputed order in so far as it relates to the petitioner and the process issued against him. Records be sent back immediately. The case is already fixed for 27-7-1981, in the lower court."
Before the arrival of the record, the Metropolitan Magistrate had already adjourned the case to 29-8-1981. On that date, an application was moved on behalf of the petitioners that previous sanction was necessary before taking cognizance against them as well and the complaint should be dismissed. Before this application could be disposed of, the Central Government granted sanction under section 197 Criminal Procedure Code . on 5-10-1981. On 17-10-1981 the complainant moved an application for placing the said sanction on record. It was also prayed for the issue of process against Nagarkar. The accused made an application on 21-11-1981 that since the sanction was granted after taking cognizance, it was of no utility and the complaint was liable to be dismissed.'
(3.)The learned Magistrate by his impugned order of 10-2-1982, (1) did not proceed against Nagarkar and deleted his name from the array of accused, and (2) confined the court's observations to V. V. Nagarkar only and as regards the remaining seven accused, he said that he was precluded from reconsidering the earlier order made by his predecessor on 9-9-1980 that sanction was not necessary; he further held that the sanction filed was redundant. He, therefore, rejected the applications of the petitioners. By a separate order of the same date, he adjourned the case to 6-3-1982 for evidence of the complainant before charge. Hence, these three petitions by Shri Charan Singh, Shri T. C. A. Srinivasavardhan, and Shri F. C. Sharma, in which they question the validity of the order of 10-2-1982. These do not seek to quash the separate order directing production of evidence. These are being disposed of by this common order.

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