- (1.) R C. Verma, ACJ. This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the Charge-sheet and criminal pro ceeding arising thereof, contained in Annexure No. l to the writ petition, includ ing the order of cognizance of the said crime number, contained in Annexure No. 1-A to the writ petition, in case No. 42 of 1996 Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and others versus Anant Kumar Singh and oth ers pending in the Court of Judicial Magis trate (CBI), Dehradun arising out of R. C. No. 2 (S) of 1995 and 3 (3) of 1995, under Section 302, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that allegations contained in the Charge sheet relating to the discharge of the offi cial duties of the petitioner being a public servant are incorrect. The sanction sought by CBI under Section 197 Criminal Pro cedure Code has been refused by the State Government and the CBI has not chal lenged the said refusal order by the State Government. Therefore, the learned Mag istrate has no right and jurisdiction either to take cognizance or to proceed against the petitioner and the entire proceedings on the basis of Charge-sheet is liable to be quashed.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are stated thus; that the protagonists of the Uttarakhand agitation had organized a rally at Delhi on 2. 10. 1994 to demonstrate against the reservation policy of the State Government and to press their demand for separate Statehood. Although the N. C. T. Government of Delhi had granted them permission to hold rally, it had banned the carrying of arms spears lathis or any other lethal weapon in the whole of Delhi and requested the U. P Government to make proper arrangement for search and not to permit any rallyists to enter Delhi with these weapons. Government of India also issued detailed instructions regarding promulga tion of prohibitory order, arrangements of search, seizure and arrests in cases of vio lation of prohibitory order, round the clock continuous vigilance, surveillance and patrolling and exchange of information. In the forenoon of 30. 9. 1994 the Divisional Commissioner, Meerut Division held a meeting of all the District Magistrate, Sen ior Superintendents of Police/superintend ents of Police of the six districts of the divi sion in which the Inspector General (Po lice), Meerut Zone and the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Meerut Range also par ticipated. In this meeting the officers were instructed to make proper arrangements for the checking of bus permits, arms etc. in their respective districts. In the same after noon a meeting was also held at the level of the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to re view the preparations made by the State Government in this regard in which the I. G. and D. I. G. , Meerut Zone/range also par ticipated. In furtherance of the decisions taken in the meeting held at various levels and verbal instructions received from the Director General of Police, UP the D. I. G. , Meerut Range issued written instructions in this regard on 1. 10. 1994. All these let ters/instructions have been annexed in the writ petition as Annexures 3 to 7. In compliance of the above orders elaborate arrangements were made for checking of arms/ ammunitions and other weapons from 8. 00 a. m. on 1. 10. 1994. This arrangement had worked smoothly and the officers/officials on duty were able to search the passengers and buses and to allow them to proceed further for Delhi. But when the rallyists came in large number and refused to undergo the process of search, the officers on duty repeatedly ex plained to them the instructions regarding checking and requested them to subject themselves to search and proceed further. The rallyists had some misunderstanding that the administration was there to some how stop them from proceeding further and thus, the more efforts were made to ex plain to them the need for search, the more was the resistance and violence from the rallyists. When the rallyists tried to proceed further forcibly without undergoing search, the district administration had to use rea sonable force to disperse the unruly crowd under the provisions laid down in the Crimi nal Procedure Code and the Police Regu lation. In the night of 1. 10. 1994 the illegal violent assembly was dispersed with lathi charge, whereas in the morning firing had to be resorted to for the dispersal of, illegal violent assembly of the rallyists as all other means including the rubber bullets had failed to produce the desired results. The written order dated 2. 10. 1994 passed by the petitioner clearly directs the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar to use minimum firing for dispersal and control of the unlawful assembly which had dis turbed the public order and some human lives were lost. It may be stated that the Uttarakhand Sangharsh Samiti ap proached the High Court at Allahabad through Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32982 of 1994 and the CBI under the directions of a Division Bench of High Court, Allahabad, lodged an FIR. The investigat ing agency CBI also filed a Charge-sheet under Sections 304, 307, 324, 326 read with Sec. 34 I. PC. under the observations and directions of the High Court dated 9. 2. 1996 before the Special Judicial Mag istrate (CBI) on 6. 4. 1996. Quoting the observations of High Court the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 302, 307, 324, 326 read with Sec. 34 I. P. C. , on 22. 4. 1996. This is case No. 42 of 1996.
(3.) THE petitioner challenged the judg ment of the High Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of SLP No. 7920 of 1996. THE Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the entire judgment and order dated 9. 2. 1996 passed by the High Court, Allahabad, vide its judgment and order dated 13. 5. 1999. THE Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Judges should have avoided making observations concerning matters which are pending considerations by the subordinate courts. Such observa tions regarding commissions of various of fences were premature and bad in law and further directions of the High Court, that no sanction is required, has also been set aside. In view of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the investigat ing agency sought sanction under Section 197 Cr. PC. of the U. P State Govt. to pros ecute the petitioner and other officers and informed the court of Special Judicial Mag istrate of the same through an application dated 26. 2. 2000.;