- (1.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of complaint No.234/02 dated 5.6.2002 lodged by the respondent under Sections 354, 506, 166/167, 217/218 and 120 -B Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), order dated 3.9.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra and the summoning order dated 18.10.2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra whereby the petitioner was summoned to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 166 and 217 IPC.
(2.) SOM Nath respondent filed a complaint Annexure P -1 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra against Sanjay son of Shree Chand and the petitioner who was posted at that time as Sub Inspector and SHO in Police Station City Thanesar. As per the allegations in the complaint, Sanjay had tried to outrage the modesty of his daughter and a complaint was given to the petitioner on 12.01.2002 in the Police Station City, Thanesar. No FIR was registered on the basis of complaint despite repeated requests. In the meanwhile accused No.1 - Sanjay through his parents in collusion with petitioner approached the complainant to settle the matter. On 17.1.2002, petitioner asked the complainant to give fresh application regarding the incident but the complainant refused. A complaint against the petitioner was submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra on 19.01.2002. It was at this juncture, the complainant came to know that an FIR for the offences under Sections 354 and 506 IPC had been registered against accused Sanjay on 17.01.2002. The grouse of the complainant was that the FIR should have been registered on 12.01.2002 when the complaint was given. The petitioner with dishonest intention and in order to save accused Sanjay, had not registered the FIR, thereby committing the offences punishable under Sections 166/167 and 217/218 read with Section 120 -B IPC.
(3.) THE trial Court vide order dated 22.3.2005 dismissed the complaint against accused No.1 Sanjay as police had registered a case against him. The complaint was dismissed against the petitioner with the observations that no offence was committed by him and the complaint was bad for want of sanction as required under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.'). The complainant preferred a revision which was partly allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra vide order dated 3.9.2005 (Annexure P -3) with the observations as follows: - "4. Since in the latest authority it has been observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana that sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not required to prosecute the Sub Inspector, the learned trial court has wrongfully come to the conclusion that sanction to prosecute accused No.2 under section 197 Cr.P.C. is required and no sanction has been taken. With regard to accused No.2, the findings of the learned trial Court are hereby set aside. 5. So far as the finding with regard to accused No.1 are concerned, it has rightly been observed that the FIR has already been registered and it would see its own fate. This fact has not been disputed that the FIR with regard to the incident complained by the complainant is concerned has already been registered though it was registered on 17.01.2002 instead of 12.01.2002. Hence the findings of the learned trial court with regard to accused No.1 are hereby affirmed. 6. With the aforesaid observations, it is hereby held that the revision is partly allowed and partly dismissed. The file be sent back to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra for trial of the complaint qua accused No.2 only. The petitioner alongwith his counsel are directed to appear in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra on 13.09.2005.";