LexOM KR. DHANKAR versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 1 S.C.R. 1160 OM KR. DHANKAR v. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 464 of 2012) FEBRUARY 28, 2012 [R.M. LODHA AND H. L. GOKHALE, JJ.] CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: c s.397 - Revision - Order of Magistrate directing issuance of summons - Held: Is open to challenge under the revisional jurisdiction. s.197 - Prosecution of public servant - Requirement of previous sanction - Held: offence of cheating u/s 420 /PC D cannot be regarded as having been committed by any public servant while acting or purporling to act in discharge of official duty - Therefore, sanction of competent authority uls 197 CrPC was not required - Trial courl shall proceed as per the E summoning order - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.420, 406 and 161. The appellant, a transporter, filed a criminal complaint against respondent no. 2 alleging that the latter with mala fide intention issued directions to the Inspector not to accept passengers tax at tax collection points; that when F three of the buses of the appellant were impounded and he visited the office of respondent no. 2, the latter told him that he had not paid Rs. 2 lakhs which was due towards the passengers tax and asked him to deposit the amount at his residence. The appellant paid the amount to G respondent no. 2 at his residence and the buses were released. The appellant alleged that respondent no. 2 cheated him, embezzled the public money and also received illegal gratification. The trial court held that sufficient grounds existed to proceed against respondent H 1160 OM KR. DHANKAR v. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.1161 no. 2 to be summoned to stand trial for offences A punishable u/ss 420, 406 and 161 IPC. Respondent no. 2 challenged the summoning order by filing a criminal revision which was allowed by the Addi. Sessions Judge holding that in the absence of sanction by competent authority the summoning order could not have been B issued. The High Court dismissed the criminal revision filed by the appellant. In the instant appeal filed by the complainant, the questions for considerations before the Court were: (i) whether the criminal revision petition against the order C of summoning is maintainable, and (ii) whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sanction u/s 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was required. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The revisional jurisdiction u/s 397 Cr.P.C. was available to respondent No. 2 in challenging the order of the Magistrate directing issuance of summons. [para 1 OJ [1166-A] Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande and Others Vs. Uttam and Another 1999 (1) SCR 580 = 1999 (3) SCC 134 ; Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra 1978 (1) SCR 749 = 1977 D E (4) SCC 551; V.C. Shukla Vs. State 1980 SCR 380 = 1980 Suppl. SCC 92; Amar Nath Vs. State of Haryana 1978 (1) F SCR 222 = 1977 (4) SCC 137; K.M. Mathew Vs. State of Kera/a 1991 (2) Suppl. SCR 364 = 1992 (1) SCC 217 - relied on. Rakesh Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Bihar 2006 (1) SCR G 124 = 2006 (1) sec 557 - held inapplicable. 2. In the case of Prakash Singh Badal, this Court has held that the offence of cheating u/s 420 IPC or for that matter offences relateable to ss. 467, 468, 471 and H 1162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 1 S.C.R. A 120-B IPC can by no stretch of imagination by their very nature be regarded as having been committed by any public servant while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty. In view of the legal position, the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court were not B right in holding that for prosecuting respondent No. 2 for the offences for which the summoning order has been issued, the sanction of the competent authority u/s 197 Cr.P.C. was required. [para 13-14] [1166-E-F; 1167-D-E] C Prakash Singh Badal and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Others 2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 197 = 2007 (1) sec 1 - relied on. 2.2 The orders of the High Court and the Additional Sessions Judge are set aside. The order passed by the D Judicial Magistrate in the criminal compfa'int is restored. E F G The trial court shall proceed against respondent No. 2 as per the summoning order. [para 15] [1167-F-G] Case Law Reference: 1999 (1) SCR 580 relied on para 9 1978 (1) SCR 749 relied on para 9 1980 SCR 380 relied on para 9 1978 (1) SCR 222 relied on para 9 1991 (2) Suppl. SCR 364 relied on para 9 2006 (1) SCR 124 held inapplicable para 10 2006 (10 ) Suppl. SC
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.