Smt. Vidya, v. Dr. Jacob, S/O. Daniel, 32/2,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.11.2016 (Orders Reserved on : 19.09.2016)
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM Crl.R.C.No.407 of 2016 Vidya ... Petitioner/Complainant Vs.
1. Dr. Jacob
2. Balakrishnaprabu ... Respondents/Accused Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the impugned order of the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, in M.P.No.1101 of 2015, dated 16.02.2016. For Petitioner : M/s.V.Vidya (Party-in-parson) No Appearance For R-1 : Mr.M.R.Kuyilan For R-2 : Mr.M.R.Varghese
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 16.02.2016 passed by the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, in M.P.No.1101 of 2015.
2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the petitioner party-in-person is absent. This Court heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
3. On reading of the order of the Trial Court, it clearly reveals that the present petitioner had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, and the learned Magistrate, in her order, at para No.36, it is stated as follows:- "36. The complainant prays that after perusing the complaint and sworn statement and also the
Document 1-14 to take the complaint on file and enquire the matter to issue summons to accused and punish the accused under Sections 193, 195, 196, 211, 464, 465 of IPC."
4. On the side of the petitioner, there was no list of witnesses enclosed and only list of documents 1 to 14 alone were produced. In this case, after perusal of the sworn statement adduced on the side of the petitioner and also the documents produced on the side of the petitioner, the Trial Court came to a conclusion that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature. Further, it is seen from the complaint that the petitioner was arrested in the case in Crime No.950 of 2009 and the case was taken on file as C.C.No.25 of 2010. The petitioner was in custody for nearly 155 days. Further, it reveals that the petitioner contested the case and participated in the trial and got acquittal in the above said case. Hence, on reading of the records, it reveals that since the matter was civil dispute, the present complainant was acquitted in the above said calender case as stated above.
5. In this case, on reading of the complaint, it reveals that A.2 was working as Inspector of Police at Pallavaram police station. Further, in the order of the trial Court at para Nos.17 and 21, it is stated as follows:- "17. The complainant submits that when the Second Accused was working as Inspector of Police. Pallavaram Police Station on 03.10.2009, on the complaint of one Dr.Jacob he has registered FIR in Cr.No.960 of 2009 in pallavaram police station under section 420 IPC. He arrested her and she was in prison for 155 days. After finishing the investigation he filed a final report in the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tambaram and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.25 of 2010 and after laborious trial the complainant was acquitted.
18. to 20. .........
21. The complaint was given at 19.00 hours that is 7 pm on 03.10.2009 and the second accused has registered the FIR immediately and finished the registration of the FIR within half an hours Second Accused himself has admitted in his evidence as P.W.9 in the case C.C.No.25 of 2010 to the effect that Dr.Jacob has given the complaint at 7 pm and the FIR was written immediately and it was prepared within half an hour."
6. On reading of the above allegations mentioned in the complaint, it was clearly established that the second accused
only in his official capacity as Inspector of Police, Pallavaram Police station, registered the case and arrested the accused and investigated the case and filed charge sheet before the Court. In view of the above, there is no personal motive stated on the side of the petitioner to implicate the second accused in the private complaint. At this stage, it is useful to refer Section 197 of Cr.P.C. which reads as follows:- "197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.
(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- (a) In the case of it 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; (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.
(2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union whole acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.
(3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of subsection (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, whenever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that sub-section will apply as if lot the expression "Central Government" occurring therein, the expression "State Government were substituted.
2[(3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (3), no court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a State while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a Proclamation issued trader clause (I) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.
(3B) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code or any other law, it is here by declared that any sanction accorded by the State Government or any cognizance taken by a court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of August, 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1991, receives the assent of the President, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in the State, shall be invalid and it shall be competent for the Central Government in such matter to accord sanction and for the court to take cognizance thereon.]"
7. In this case, it is clearly proved that the second accused was working as a public servant and he has done his official duties. The petitioner ought to have obtain sanction for filing the private complaint against the second accused. But admittedly, no such permission was obtained by the present complainant from the concerned authorities. It is also admitted that the petitioner has not chosen to apply for sanction for prosecuting the second accused, who is a public servant.
8. In view of the above, the private complaint filed by the revision petitioner against the second accused is not at all maintainable at this stage. In this case, on reading of the complaint, it is seen that since the dispute between the petitioner and the first respondent is only civil in nature, the trial Court, after considering the entire evidence and documents, came to a proper conclusion and dismissed the complaint. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court which does not warrant any interference by this Court and hence, the criminal revision case is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly,
this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Jrl To XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
2 Copy to:
The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras 104 +1cc to Mr.M.R. Kuyilan, Advocate, S.R.No.70829 +2cc to Mr.V. Vidya, , Advocate, S.R.No.69709 msm(CO) md(22/12/2016) Crl.R.C.No.407 of 2016