Writ petition allowed. High Court quashed criminal proceedings. Court held sanction order passed by Government without application of mind and without reasons violates Section 196 Cr.PC.
Writ petition allowed; Proceedings in C.C.No.4201/2014 quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO.15663/2019 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI SHARAN @ SHARAN PUMPWELL S/O RAVINDRA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS NO.1/2, PUMPWELL BYPASS ROAD KANKANADY MANGALORE-575 002.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SUYOG HERELE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ROHITH B.J., HCGP)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 3.4.2014 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS I C.C.NO.4201/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED J.M.F.C [COURT-II] MANGALORE INCLUDING COMPLAINT, FIR AND THE CHARGE SHEET VIDE ANNEXURE-B, C, D, AND E RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The Police after investigation, have filed the charge sheet against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 153A of IPC.
3
that after perusing the material placed before him has granted sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the aforesaid offences and the same does not warrant any interference. He further submits that the application of mind before passing an order granting sanction is not mandatory when the material placed along with the requisition clearly disclose the commission of offence alleged against the petitioner.
5. Section 196 of Cr.PC specifies that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under 153A of Indian Penal Code except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government. In the present case, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on the basis of the order passed by the 2nd respondent. Perusal of the impugned order granting sanction as specified under Section 196A of Cr.PC indicates that the 2nd respondent without application of mind and without assigning any reason has passed the order granting sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. A
4
coordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.24900/2018 (DD
27.1.2020) has held as follows:
"12. Be that as it may. As could be seen from the sanction order of Government dated 21.06.2013, it indicates that it has only referred the sending of material and contents of the complaint. Thereafter, stated that the statement of the witnesses and other things, constitute an offence under Section 196 of the IPC. In order to constitute an offence, there must be a sanction of Central Government or the State Government and without there being any sanction; no Court shall take the cognizance of the offence. No doubt the sanction order has been produced. A fair perusal of the sanction order produced by the prosecution indicates that the requisite materials constitute the alleged offences and are not placed before the sanctioning Authority. The sanction has been accorded only on the basis of the requisition made by the DGP and IGP and the said order does not refer to the facts and statement of the witnesses for having perused the same and without satisfying the sanction order itself has been issued. Though it is contended by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the said Section 196 does not say that there must be an application of mind. But when the sanction has to be issued, the object and spirit of the Section if it is taken into consideration, then the frivolous and a false complaint should not be encouraged as it affects the tranquility and the peace of the country in that light, the said provisions has been made. Entire material if it is perused, it indicates that where he has seen the intention of the accused and where he has satisfied and also has not been specifically stated that it is one of the essential ingredients to constitute an offence. In the absence of such material, the sanctioning Authority has not
5
applied its mind before issuing the sanction order dated 21.06.2013. Looking from any angle, the materials produced does not constitute an offence so as to proceed against the accused."
Cr.PC which clearly specifies that it is incumbent on the State Government to pass speaking orders clearly recording reasons while justifying permission to prosecute any citizen and also the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.24900/2018, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent granting sanction to prosecute the petitioner is one without application of mind and the same requires to be quashed. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed:
ii) The impugned proceeding in C.C.No.4201/2014
pending on the file of the JMFC (II Court), Mangalore is hereby quashed.
Sd/JUDGE
HR
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a sanction order granting prosecution under Section 196 Cr.PC requires application of mind and recording of reasons.
Whether the Sanctioning Authority applied its mind to the facts in the impugned sanction order.
Whether proceedings under C.C.No.4201/2014 are maintainable without a valid sanction under Section 153A IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
WP No.24900/2018 (DD 27.1.2020)Relied on¶29
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Sharan @ Sharan Pumpwell
The State of Karnataka
The Secretary to Government Home Department
Hemant Chandangouudar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court