Crl.Misc.No.M-21702 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No. M-21702 of 2008 Date of Decision: 12 - 5 - 2009 Randhir Singh alias Dhira .....Petitioner v. Devi Dayal and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.P.C.Chaudhary, Advocate for Mr.Madan Pal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sandeep Panwar, Advocate for Mr.M.R.Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed by Randhir Singh @ Dhira under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of impugned order dated 16.5.2008 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal and impugned order dated 14.7.2008, Annexure P-6 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal. Before import of these orders is taken into consideration, it will be necessary to notice brief facts of the case. Petitioner had filed a complaint in the Court of Area Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal under Sections 323, 193, 196, 201, 148, 149, 506 IPC. In the complaint Annexure P1, it Crl.Misc.No.M-21702 of 2008 [2] was stated that on 9.2.2007, complainant along with his bullock cart was going to his field when a truck mark TATA 407 bearing registration No.HR-45-5761 came from the back side at a very high speed, in rash manner and struck the bullock cart and due to the accident, bull of the complainant fell on the road and became unconscious. It is stated that the truck was being driven by Exemplary Head Constable Shamsher Singh. Accused Nos.1 to 6 police officials were sitting in the truck. They were annoyed. Petitioner was beaten by accused Nos.1 to 7. They were police officials. Petitioner was taken into custody in case FIR No.41 dated 9.2.2007 registered at Police Station Sadar Kaithal under Sections 341, 353, 186, 506 IPC. Later on, on the insistence of the petitioner, he was medico legally examined. Grievance of the petitioner is that he was caused injuries by the police officials and, therefore, accused-respondents have committed offence under various penal provisions. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal vide impugned order dated 16.5.2008, Annexure P4 refused to summon the accused-respondents on the ground that no sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. has been obtained by the complainant. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had filed a revision petition. The revision petition was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that version given by the petitioner is also his defence version in the FIR case, in which he has been named as accused. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon M.Gopalakrishnan v. State by Addl.S.P. CBI, B.S. &F.C., Bangalore, 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 534 to contend that whether sanction is required or not, is mixed question of law and facts and it can only be determined during Crl.Misc.No.M-21702 of 2008 [3] the course of trial, whether sanction is necessary or not. In M.Gopalakrishnan's case (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has placed reliance on P.K.Pradhan v. State of Sikkim, 2001(3) RCR (Criminal) 835. Paragraph 17 of M.Gopalakrishnan's case (supra) read as under:- “17. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on a decision of this Court in P.K.Pradhan v. State of Sikkim, 2001 (3) RCR (Criminal) 835: (2001 SCC (Crl.) 1234), wherein it is observed as follows: “Question of requirement of sanction for prosecution could be raised at any time after cognizance of the offence is taken, may be even at the time of conclusion of trial or after conviction.” It is also observed that: “The claim of the accused that the act alleged was done reasonably and not in pretended course of his official duty can be examined during the trial by giving an opportunity to the defence to prove it. In such cases, the question of sanction can be left open to be decided in the main judgment after conclusion of trial.” Counsel for the petitioner has further stated that police officials even if purportedly acted in discharge of their official duty, cannot claim immunity for causing injuries to the petitioner. Be that as it may, whether sanction is required or not, this question is kept open. Orders Annexures P-4 and P-6 are set aside. Accused-respondents stand summoned to face trial. The trial Court at the conclusion of the trial shall determine from the plea raised by both the Crl.Misc.No.M-21702 of 2008 [4] parties, whether sanction was necessary or not. The trial Court shall be guided by the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.K.Pradhan's case (supra). Anything said herein will not prejudice the rights of the respondents. They will be well within their rights to raise the defence, that the sanction was required in the present case and they cannot be prosecuted. The petition is disposed off. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) May 12, 2009. JUDGE RC