H.K.SANDHU,J - (1.) RAM Niwas Jindal respondent filed a complaint for offences under Sections 383, 452 and 506 I.P.C. and under Sections 3 and 4 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, for short (TADA Act) in the Court of Additional Judge, Designated Court, Faridkot. The petitioner filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint on the ground that earlier a case was registered against him at the instance of Ram Niwas Jindal respondent and after investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in Court, but the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of TADA Act were dropped. The Court was already seized of the matter in respect of first information report lodged by the respondent and the complaint was not legally maintainable.
(2.) NOTICE of the petition was given to the respondent and he submitted a reply alleging that he did not want to pursue the complaint as well as the case registered at his instance, as the dispute related to the management of S.S.M.D. Ayurvedic College, Moga and a civil suit had been filed with respect to that dispute. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the complaint was filed simply because the offences under the TADA Act were dropped. As per Section 20-A of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 1993 no Court can take cognizance of any offence under the Act without the previous sanction of the Inspector General of Police or, as the case may be, Commissioner of Police. A private complaint for any offence under the Act is, therefore, not maintainable and the complaint is liable to be quashed on this ground alone.
(3.) TAKING into consideration the assertion made by the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the return filed by the respondent, I find it a fit case to allow the petition. The complaint dated 14.6.1993 Annexure P-6 is, therefore, quashed. Petition allowed.;