Dismissed

Vidya Sagar v. State of U.P. and 11 Ors.

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2023/378/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging a rejection of an application under Section 156(3) CrPC. The High Court held the trial court was correct in rejecting the application because the revisionist failed to secure requisite prosecution sanction under Section 197 CrPC for public servant respondents and the allegations did not clearly disclose a cognizable offence.

What did the court decide?

Revision against the impugned order rejecting the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed; original order upheld.

Vidya Sagar Vs State of U.P. and 11 Ors. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:44572

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 378 of 2017

¶4

Revisionist :- Vidya Sagar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 11 Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Sachin Tiwari,Subodh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A,Anil Kumar Kushwaha

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.

¶6

The present Criminal Revision under Section 397/411 Cr.P.C. is preferred aggrieved with the impugned order dated 27.01.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Hardoi in Misc. Case No. 183 of 2016, Vidya Sagar Vs. Rajeev Dixit and others, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Police Station Bilgram, District Hardoi, whereby the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., filed by the revisionist, has been rejected.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶8

It has been submitted on behalf of the revisionist that he moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for summoning of the accused-respondent nos. 2 to 12 on the ground that the revisionist belongs to scheduled caste whereas respondents belong to upper castes. He was tying his animals and using the impugned land for the purpose of Kanda, Bathiya and Ghura etc. There was a wall with dimension of 11 feet height and 20 feet length. His cousin Ram Sajeevan contested the election of Gram Pradhan against Rajeev Dixit, respondent no. 1, therefore respondents have enmity against him. On 13.03.2016, at about 12:45 p.m., respondents in connivance with SDM and Tehsildar, started demolition of the impugned wall and when he raised objection to this, the respondents started beating him by fists, kicks, shoes and sleepers as well as abusing him by caste. He went to lodge the FIR regarding the incident but his FIR was not registered nor he was medically examined. Thereafter, he sent letters to SSP, Hardoi, DGP, Lucknow, Chairman Human Rights Commission as well as Chief Minister, U.P. through fax. When no action is taken against the respondents, he moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was rejected by the court concerned vide order dated 27.01.2017, hence the present revision.

¶9

It is further submitted that cognizance offence is made out from the contents of the application but the trial court did not

¶10

consider the facts of the case and rejected the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the ground that there is no medical examination of the injured, hence the order is illegal and liable to be set aside.

¶11

On the contrary, learned AGA for the State submitted that respondent nos. 11 and 12, namely, SDM, Prem Prakash Tiwari and Tehsildar Nand Kishore Maurya are public servants and no permission is sought for from the department for prosecuting them. It is further submitted by learned AGA for the State that order of the learned trial court is in consonance with the provisions of law, hence there is no illegality in the impugned order and the revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

I have perused the application moved by the revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and other material on record and also heard rival submissions advanced by both the parties. Para 3 of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. discloses that on 13.03.2016 at about 12.45 p.m., SDM Prem Prakash Tiwari and Tehsildar Nand Kishore Maurya reached on the ancestral land of the revisionist and started to demolish the wall and when he objected it, they started abusing him by caste and beat him by kicks, fists and shoes. It is admitted fact in the application that the revisionist is not medically examined. The application was moved on 18.03.2016 and the incident occurred on 13.03.2016. The revisionist neither filed any record to demonstrate that he tried to lodge the FIR in the police station nor the copy of the application, given to SSP, Hardoi, is annexed with the revision, therefore, there is no record available on file to show that the revisionist has taken the recourse of law as provided under the law.

¶13

It is also worth mentioning that the allegation is that the respondents started beating the revisionist by fists, kicks and shoes. No weapon is used and the revisionist is not medically examined, hence no injury report is on record to reveal that he sustained any grievous injury. From the allegation levelled through the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the cognizable offence is not disclosed. So far as the offence under Section SC/ST Act is concerned, it is to be considered in the light of substantive offence committed by the respondents. The application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. does not reveal the contents of any cognizable offence, hence offence under the SC/ST Act is levelled as an ornamental Section and appears that the contents regarding SC/ST Act are only to harass the respondents in the name of Scheduled Caste. The allegation under the SC/ST Act is to be read in the light of substantive offence that does not disclose the cognizable offence.

¶14

Besides this, respondent nos. 11 and 12 are public servants and Section 197 Cr.P.C. provides as under:

¶15

"197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.

¶16

(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction-

¶17

(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;

¶18

(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government: 1 Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression" State Government" occurring therein, the expression" Central Government" were substituted."

¶19

Section 197(1) of the Cr.P.C. requires to obtain sanction for prosecution against the government officials. Hon'ble Apex Court referring the various decisions in the matter. In the case of D. Devraja Vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain, Criminal Appeal No. 458 of 2020, Hon'ble Apex Court held that sanction is required not only for acts done in the discharge of official duty but also required for any act purported to be done in the discharge of official duty and/or done under colour of or in excess of such duty or authority. In the case of Devinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab through CBI, Criminal Appeal No. 190 of 2003 , Hon'ble Apex Court held that even in facts of a case when public servant has exceeded in his duty, if there is reasonable connection, it will not deprive him of protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C.

¶20

In the impugned case, no direct allegation has been made against respondent nos. 11 and 12. Only allegation has been made against respondent nos. 2 to 10 for beating the revisionist in the presence of respondent nos. 11 and 12. Hence, it is clear that the act, even if lacking in bonafides or in consequence of conspiracy, would be an act in discharging his official duty making the case crime within the parameters of Section 197(1) of Cr.P.C. Further in the circumstances, the revisionist could not show the presence of respondent nos. 11 and 12 at the time of occurrence. Hence, the sanction of prosecution against respondent nos. 11 and 12 is mandatory. The revisionist did not obtain the sanction as per requirement of 197(1) of Cr.P.C. and

¶21

directly filed the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for lodging of the FIR.

¶22

The court concerned has clearly mentioned the fact in the order that revisionist did not file any sanction before the court concerned. [Citation: Srinivasusu Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Criminal Appeal No. 2417 of 2010].

¶23

After perusing the order of trial court and in view of the discussions made above, I find that learned trial court acted in consonance with the law and passed the order accordingly. The revisionist did not disclose that the offence is cognizable, hence, learned trial court passed the order within the parameters of law. There is no illegality, irregularity, perversity or miscarriage of justice, hence the order of trial court is liable to be upheld and the revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶24

In the light of above discussions, the revision is dismissed.

¶25

[Renu Agarwal,J.]

¶26

Order Date :- 7.7.2023 kkv/

¶27

Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vidya Sagar v. State of U.P. and 11 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidya Sagar v. State of U.P. and 11 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhaggu @ Masum Ali Vs State of U.P.

Madan Vs State of U.P.

Priya Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Hausila Prasad Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 4 Others

Buddha @ Buddha Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Smt. Maya Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and 12 Others