IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1004 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- SAHARSA [ENTITY], Son of Late Shyamal Yadav, Halka Karamchari at Kishunpur Anchal at Kishunpur, P.S.-Kishunpura, District-Supaul. Petitioner Versus 1. The [ENTITY] through the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna 2. The [ENTITY]. 3. The [ENTITY]. 4. The S.H.O. [ENTITY]. 5. [ENTITY] S/o Late Maheshwar Prasad Singh, Resident of Village- Gangajala Ward No.-18 Ajad Chouk, Saharsa, P.S.-Sadar Saharsa, District-Saharsa. Respondents Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate For the Respondent-O.P.No.2 : Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 17-08-2015 The petitioner seeks quashing of the first information report of [ENTITY] [CASE NUMBER] registered under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT].
2. Initially respondent No. 5 filed a complaint which was sent to the police under [SECTION] [ACT] pursuant to which the FIR was registered and investigation was taken up. The informant has invariably stated that his agricultural land bearing 2 Patna High Court [CASE NUMBER] dt.17-08-2015 khata no. 346/Ka (New) situated in Mouza Singaon falls under [ENTITY] i.e. circle of Supaul District and its R.S. Khatian as well as chakbandi khatian stands in the joint names of his father late [ENTITY] and uncle [ENTITY] and Late [ENTITY] and its chakbandi khata is 287. Accordingly its jamabani is also running in their names. He has further alleged that he came to know on a rumour doing rounds that the accused persons were under a conspiracy to usurp his aforesaid land on the strength of papers forged at the Record room Saharsa and finally the accused nos. 1 and 2 brought the accused no. 6 in their collusion and forged a paper and got jamabandi of the land created on the basis of such forged papers in their names and favour by the accused nos. 4, 5 and 7 i.e. the writ petitioner and others. The further allegation is that on coming to know of it, he inquired about the genuineness of the cess-Re-evaluation Return, R.S. khatian of khata 346/chha (w) and Rent Reduction schedule prepared U/[SECTION] of the [ACT] and came to know that all the aforesaid papers were forged and they got jamabandi of the land created with the help of the accused nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7 when he sought information in this regard form the said Record Room, he came to know that such certified copies were never issued from the record room. He further got a panchayat organized but for no gain and ultimately filed the complaint case. 3 Patna High Court [CASE NUMBER] dt.17-08-2015
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a Revenue Clerk and hence, he could not have been prosecuted without obtaining sanction under [SECTION] of the [ACT] (For short the Code),
4. In my view, the application is misconceived. The allegations made in the first information report do attract ingredients of the offences alleged.
5. The matter is under investigation. The petitioner being a class-III government servant is not protected under [SECTION] of the Code. Even otherwise, no protection under [SECTION] of the Code would be available to the accused when the offence is committed in course of discharge of official duty by a public servant relates to cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, etc. Such offence cannot be said to be committed by public servant while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty.
6. In [PRECEDENT], the Supreme Court held that the offences alleged to have committed by a public servant under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] cannot be regarded as having been committed while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty and the proceedings initiated against the public servant should not be quashed for want of sanction.
4 Patna High Court [CASE NUMBER] dt.17-08-2015
7. In [PRECEDENT], the Supreme Court held as under:-
"10. That apart, the contention of the respondent that for offences under [SECTION] and [SECTION] read with [SECTION] of the [ACT] sanction under [SECTION] of the Code is a condition precedent for launching the prosecution is equally fallacious. This Court has stated the legal position in [PRECEDENT] and in [ENTITY] v. State of Pepsu [1955 RD-SC 9] that it is not every offence committed by a public servant, which requires sanction for prosecution under [SECTION] of the Code, nor even every act done by him while he is actually engaged in the performance of his official duties. Following the above legal position it was held in Harihar Prasad etc. v. [ENTITY] [1972 (3) SCC 89] as follows:-
" As far as the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under [SECTION], read with [SECTION], [ACT] is concerned and also [SECTION] of the [ACT] is concerned, they cannot be said to be of the nature mentioned in [SECTION] of the [ACT]. To put it shortly, it is no part of the duty of a public servant, while discharging his official duties, to enter into a criminal conspiracy or to indulge in criminal 5 Patna High Court [CASE NUMBER] dt.17-08-2015 misconduct. Want of sanction under [SECTION] of the [ACT] is, therefore, nor bar"
11. Above views are reiterated in [PRECEDENT].
Both [ENTITY] (supra) and S.R. Munnipalli (supra) were noted in that case.
[SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION], [ACT] relate to forgery of valuable security, Will etc; forgery for purpose of cheating and using as genuine a forged document respectively. It is not part of the duty of a public servant while discharging his official duties to commit forgery of the type covered by the aforesaid offences. Want of sanction under [SECTION] of the Code is, therefore, no bar."
8. In [PRECEDENT]. [[PRECEDENT]], it has been held by the Supreme Court that powers under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] for quashing criminal proceeding has to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
9. In Bharat Amratlal Kothari and Another v.
Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi and Others [(2010) 1 SCC 234], it has been held the powers under [SECTION] of the [ACT] cannot be exercised to quash the FIR if prima facie commission of 6 Patna High Court [CASE NUMBER] dt.17-08-2015 offence is made out.
10. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court as referred under the preceding paragraph, in my opinion, no case for quashing the FIR is made out.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.
([ENTITY], J.) [ENTITY]