IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application(C482) No. 174 2008 1. Harish Chandra Singh Rana S/o Shri Soban Singh Rana R/o 47/4 Vidya Vihar Colony Kargi Road, Dehradun Presently posted as Assistant Engineer Haridwar Development Authority Haridwar (Uttarakhand) 2. Anand Ram Arya or, S/o Late Shri D.R. Arya R/o 8/A/3 Bank Colony, Mohani Road, Dehradun Presently posted as Junior Engineer Haridwar Development Authority Haridwar (Uttarakhand) ………..…Applicants. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through its Home 2. Station House Officer, Police Station-Kotwali City District Haridwar. 3. Shri Anil Kumar Saxena S/o Shri Krishan Bihari Office Superintendent, Haridwar Development Authority Haridwar (Uttarakhand) ..……Opposite parties. Shri Pankaj Purohit, Advocate, with Shri Bhuvnesh Joshi Advocate, present for the petitioners. 2 Smt. Mamta Bisht A.G.A., with Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of code of criminal procedure 1973( for short Cr.P.C.) the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case No. 4702 of 2007 State vs. Harish Chandra Singh & another, relating to offences punishable under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 277, 218 I.P.C., pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this Court to Annexure-SA1 to supplementary counter affidavit dated 30.04.2008, file by Shri Bhaskaranand, Additional Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Uttarakhand. Said document, which is copy of letter dated 21.09.2006, sent by Principal Secretary to the Government of Uttarakhand, addressed to Vice Chairman, Haridwar Development Authority, discloses that since the petitioners are the members of 3 the Centralize Service, no first information report could have been lodged without taking sanction from the State Government. In para 3 of said supplementary evidence, the Additional Secretary of Department of Home, states that the Principal Secretary of Housing Department was competent authority to sanction the prosecution of the petitioner. Said authority, after considering the matter, has declined to grant the sanction vide its letter No. 1883/V-(AA)/6-54(AA)/2006 dated 21.09.2006. 4. The petitioners who are public servants have challenged the criminal proceedings on the ground that they cannot have been prosecuted without sanction from the State Government, for their action in discharge of their public functions. 5. In the present case, the first information report was lodged by a Head Clerk of Haridwar Development Authority, alleging that the petitioner No. 1 Harish Chandra Singh, Assistant Engineer and petitioner No. 2 Anand Ram Arya, Junior Engineer, allowed an unauthorized constructions, in violation of 4 the rules. The plea of the petitioners is that they cannot be prosecuted for an act which pertains to their discharge of public function without sanction from the State Government, as required in section 197 of Cr.P.C. 6. Since in the counter affidavit it has been admitted that no sanction was given by the State Government for prosecution of the petitioners, the prosecution in question, without sanction from the State Government, is liable to quashed. 7. Accordingly petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is allowed. The proceedings of criminal case No. 4702 of 2007 State vs. Harish Chandra Singh & another, relating to offences punishable under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 277, 218 I.P.C., pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, are hereby quashed. Dt:29.04.2010 parul (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 5 6