S V HIREMATH Vs. VEERABHADRAGOUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed under section 482 Cr. P. C. to quash the order dated 16-2-2002 passed by the Sessions Judge in crl. R. P. No. 74/2000. The brief facts leading to this case is that the respondent is a registered contractor and the petitioners-1 and 2 are executive engineers in MRBC subdivision-5, Ron and Sub-Division-22, Ron, respectively. The other petitioners were working as assistant executive engineers in the aforesaid sub-divisions and they have been entrusted with the road repair work, to that effect an agreement was entered into between the respondent-1 and the assistant executive engineer MRBC sub-Division22. After completion of the work measurements were entered in the MRBC register. Accordingly, as per the agreement respondent- 1 was entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 1,53,346. 71. When he requested the petitioners herein for making such payments they did not consider his request and payment of said sum was not made. Therefore he made several written requests to the petitioners herein and thereafter legal notice was issued through his counsel on various dates to the assistant executive engineer, mrbc Sub-Divsion-22. Later he came to know that the petitioners herein with an intention to cheat the respondent-1 forged the documents of measurements taken in mrb, therefore he filed a complaint against all the petitioners and the complaint came to the referred to the police under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. for investigation and report. After investigation the police said to have submitted 'b' report, therefore he challenged the same before the Magistrate. The Magistrate, after considering the materials placed on record dismissed 'b' report and the cognizance was taken and summons was issued to the petitioners. Later the complaint came to be dismissed on the ground that the respondent-1 herein who is a complainant before the Magistrate had not taken prior sanction from the appointing authority to prosecute the petitioners. Accordingly the respondent-1 herein challenged the said order of dismissal of the complaint before the Sessions Judge in Crl. R. P. 74/2000. After considering the evidence placed on record the learned Sessions Judge held that the magistrate has not taken into account the materials placed on record, namely that the petitioners-accused had forged the documents by inserting the name of K. C. Hiremath in place of the name of respondent- 1 and the Magistrate has not considered all the materials and dismissed the petition only on the point of non-obtaining of sanction to prosecute the petitioners. Therefore, against the said order the petitioners herein have come up with this revision petition.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.

(3.) DURING the course of the arguments the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since he petitioners are the Government servants prior sanction is essential to prosecute them. It is further submitted that there is delay in lodging the complaint and also the police have submitted 'b' report after thorough investigation therefore the trial Court, after considering all the points raised before it, dismissed the complaint. Further it is submitted that most of the petitioners are already retired from service and if the complaint is remanded to the trial Court for reconsideration or to face the trial then it would be very difficult to appear on each and every date of hearing, therefore the order under challenge is liable to be dismissed.