AMIT SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner to challenge the order dated 4.2.2013 in C.R. No. 28/2012, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner also craves leave of this court to assail another order dated 29.2.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.R.P. No. 61/2011 and order dated 15.9.2009 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in CC No. 3097/1/2008. Addressing arguments on the present petition Mr. Jatan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Government servant and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioner under Section 323 /352 IPC vide his order dated 15.09.2009 without appreciating the fact that no previous sanction was obtained by the complainant before launching the said prosecution against the petitioner in terms of Section 197 Cr.P.C.

(2.) COUNSEL also submits that this question was raised by the petitioner in the earlier revision petition preferred by him and the said revision petition was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge without considering the alleged legal factum and the same was dismissed only on the point of limitation. Counsel further submits that there is no bar on the petitioner to reiterate the same legal question again as it is one of the essential pre -requisite to be considered before issuance of summons in the said complaint case. Counsel also submits that the petitioner had gone to the house of respondent No. 2/complainant on 3rd July, 2008 so as to deliver the transfer order in due discharge of his official duties and, therefore, sanction of the Government was pre -requisite before the institution of the complaint by respondent No. 2. In support of his arguments counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments: -

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by him. The present petitioner was summoned by the learned Magistrate in a complaint case filed by respondent No. 2 to seek prosecution of the petitioner for committing an offence under Sections 323 /353 IPC vide order dated 15.09.2009. According to the petitioner he is a Government servant posted as Section Officer, in Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India at Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. That he had gone to the residence of respondent No. 2 to deliver a transfer order, which as per the petitioner was in due discharge of his official duties and, therefore, previous sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was mandatory for filing of the said complaint by respondent No. 2. The said order of summoning was challenged by the petitioner earlier in Crl. R. Petition No. 61/2011 and one of the ground raised by the petitioner in the said revision petition was that no previous sanction of the competent authority was obtained by respondent No. 2 before filing of the said complaint. The said criminal revision petition was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 29.2.2012 on the point of limitation. Indisputably, the petitioner had never challenged the said order dated 29.2.2012 and instead had filed another application before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to seek dropping of the said criminal proceedings against him. Vide order dated 30th July, 2012 the said application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. The operative para of the order of the Magistrate is reproduced as under: -