IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL* Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 598 of 2011 Smt. Muneshi Devi W/o Sansar Singh Resident of Aam Parav Kotdwar P atti Sukhraon, Distt. Pauri Garhwal. ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Dehradun. 2. Sri Sanjeev Kumar S/o Ramesh Singh R/o Village Lokmanipur At present Haldukhata, Kotdwar District Pauri Garhwal. 3. Prem Raj S/o Sri Gyan Lal Retired Tehsilder Kotdwar R/o Upper Chopra, Distt. Pauri Garhwal. 4. Mahavir Singh S/o Sri Jai Singh R/o Nandpur Patti –Motadhak P.S. Kotdwar, Distt. Pauri Garhwal. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Raman Kumar Shah, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. T.C. Agarwal, Addl. Govt. Advocate, present for the State. Mr. L.K. Tiwari, Advocate, present for respondent No. 3. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the 2 petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 21.05.2010, passed by Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, in Criminal Revision No. 10 of 2010, whereby the summoning order passed by the Magistrate, summoning the respondent No. 3, was stayed. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal (camp Kotdwar), has committed error of law in passing the impugned order, as the revision against the summoning order was not maintainable. 4) Perusal of the order dated 06.05.2010, passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar, in Criminal Case No. 147 of 2009, shows that said court has summoned the respondent No. 3, a Tehsildar, without there being any sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. The allegation against respondent No. 3 P. Raj, a Tehsildar, is that he registered a sale deed while holding charge of Sub Registrar, without completing the formalities required for registration. As such, it is clear that the offence said to have been committed by respondent No. 3 requires necessary sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. before cognizance is taken against such person. In the opinion of this court, the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance against respondent No. 3 is apparently against law. 3 5) Copy of charge sheet (mentioning name of respondent No. 3 in the column of those not challaned) which is annexed with this petition shows that with the name of respondent No. 3 it is clearly mentioned by the Investigating Officer that sanction is required to be taken. As such, summoning order passed by the Magistrate in such a police challani case, in which it is clearly mentioned that sanction is required to be taken, cannot be said to be an interlocutory order in a police challani case. Perusal of the charge sheet shows that the charge sheet was filed in fact against Muneshi Devi (present petitioner), one Nisha Bisht, and the second charge sheet was against Mahavir Singh. Name of respondent No. 3 is in the column who were not challaned. This clearly shows that no summoning order could have been passed by the Magistrate against respondent No. 3. No doubt, had the charge sheet been filed against the present petitioner, it could have been said that the summoning order passed by the Magistrate was an interlocutory order, but the perusal of the charge sheet shows that name of respondent No. 3 is in the column of those accused who were not chargesheeted. It is clarified against name of respondent No. 3 that a sanction is required to be taken. In such circumstances, in the opinion of this court learned Sessions Judge has committed no error of law in passing the impugned order. 4 6) Assuming for a moment, that the Sessions Judge could not have entertained the revision, in view of the principle of law laid down in Adalat Prasad Vs. Roop Lal Jindal, reported in A.I.R. 2004 Supreme Court 46, interference with said order by this court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., would revive an unlawful order passed by the Magistrate which is against the spirit contained in Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are not meant for doing an act which is against the ends of justice. 7) For the reasons as discussed above, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. July 11, 2011. H. Negi * Approved for reporting