Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Gajanan Modku Meshram, filed a criminal application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the order dated 16.3.2011 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadchiroli, refusing to discharge him from three criminal cases (Regular Criminal Case No.1/2000, 2/2000, and 16/2000) arising out of Crime Nos.7/1999, 11/1999, and 51/1999 for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 477, and 409 IPC. The applicant also challenged the order dated 17.2.2014 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, in Criminal Revision Application No.23/2011, which confirmed the Magistrate's order. The applicant contended that his name was not mentioned in the FIR and there was no allegation that he demanded or accepted any amount or favour for discharging his official functions. He further argued that the alleged offences were committed while acting as a public servant, attracting the bar under Section 197 CrPC, and thus cognizance could not be taken without prior sanction. The State opposed, submitting that the stage of discharge was over and the cases were fixed for evidence. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the FIR did not name the applicant and there was no allegation of demand or acceptance of any amount or favour. The court held that the Magistrate's order refusing discharge was perverse for lack of application of mind and that the bar under Section 197 CrPC was applicable. Consequently, the High Court quashed the orders of the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge and discharged the applicant from all three criminal cases.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Discharge - Section 197 CrPC - Sanction for Prosecution of Public Servant - The applicant, a public servant, was sought to be prosecuted for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 477, 409 IPC without prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC. The FIR did not name the applicant and there was no allegation that he demanded or accepted any amount or favour. The Magistrate's order refusing discharge was held to be perverse for lack of application of mind. The High Court quashed the proceedings, holding that the bar under Section 197 CrPC applies and cognizance could not be taken without sanction (Paras 4-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether criminal proceedings against a public servant can be quashed when the FIR does not name the applicant and no sanction under Section 197 CrPC has been obtained, and whether the Magistrate's order refusing discharge was perverse for lack of application of mind.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the application, quashed the order dated 16.3.2011 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadchiroli, and the order dated 17.2.2014 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, and discharged the applicant from Regular Criminal Case No.1/2000, Regular Criminal Case No.2/2000, and Regular Criminal Case No.16/2000.
Law Points
- Section 197 CrPC bar on taking cognizance without sanction
- discharge at stage of framing charge
- application of mind by Magistrate
- perverse order
- absence of allegations in FIR
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (01) 101
Criminal Application (APL) No.363 of 2014
Mr. B.L. Meshram for the Applicant, Mr. M.M. Ekre, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/State
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of orders refusing discharge and for discharge from three criminal cases.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the order dated 16.3.2011 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadchiroli, refusing to discharge the applicant from three criminal cases, and the order dated 17.2.2014 passed by Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, confirming the same, and consequently discharge of the applicant.
Filing Reason
The applicant's name was not mentioned in the FIR, there was no allegation of demand or acceptance of any amount or favour, and the bar under Section 197 CrPC applied as the alleged offences were committed while acting as a public servant.
Previous Decisions
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadchiroli, on 16.3.2011 refused to discharge the applicant from Regular Criminal Case No.1/2000, 2/2000, and 16/2000. The Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, on 17.2.2014 dismissed Criminal Revision Application No.23/2011, confirming the Magistrate's order.
Issues
Whether the Magistrate's order refusing discharge was perverse for lack of application of mind?
Whether the bar under Section 197 CrPC applies, requiring prior sanction for prosecution of the applicant as a public servant?
Submissions/Arguments
Applicant: Name not in FIR, no allegation of demand or acceptance of any amount or favour, offences alleged while acting as public servant, bar under Section 197 CrPC, Magistrate's order perverse.
Respondent/State: Stage of discharge over, charge framed, cases fixed for evidence, plea cannot be raised now.
Ratio Decidendi
The Magistrate's order refusing discharge was perverse for lack of application of mind as the FIR did not name the applicant and there was no allegation of demand or acceptance of any amount or favour. The bar under Section 197 CrPC applies to the prosecution of a public servant for offences alleged to have been committed while acting in discharge of official duties, and without prior sanction, cognizance cannot be taken.
Judgment Excerpts
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that there has been absolutely no application of mind to the facts present on record on the part of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the result is a perverse order regarding framing of charge against the applicant.
He submits that when the name of the applicant is not mentioned anywhere in the F.I.R. and it has also not been alleged by anybody that the applicant had demanded or accepted any amount or any favour for discharging his official functions, the offences as alleged against him could not have been registered against the applicant.
He submits that even otherwise, the alleged offences have been stated to be committed by the applicant while acting as or purporting to act as a public servant and, therefore, a bar under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is applicable because of which cognizance of the alleged offences cannot be taken by a Criminal Court.
Procedural History
The applicant filed an application for discharge before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadchiroli, which was rejected on 16.3.2011. The applicant then filed Criminal Revision Application No.23/2011 before the Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, which was dismissed on 17.2.2014. Thereafter, the applicant filed the present criminal application under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 477, 409
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 197, 482
