BHARAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsels for the applicant as well as the respondents. This Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 4.9.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar in Criminal Complaint Case No. 828 of 2004 Sunita Wilson Vs. Dr. Bharam Singh and order dated 20.12.2005 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 320 of 2004 Sunita Wilson Vs. Dr. Bharam Singh.

(2.) A complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar by respondent no. 4 stating that her husband, namely, Maxwell Wilson is a “Chowkidar” (peon) at Community Health Centre, Laksar (District Haridwar). The accused person (which is the present applicant before this Court) is a Medical Officer in this hospital. The complaint further states that the complainant and her husband are followers of Christian faith. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused person always calls the husband of the complainant as “foreigner” and “Angarej” apart from calling him by other names. On this complaint where other averments were made as well but need not be stated at this present juncture, the fact of the matter is that cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate and summons were issued to the present applicant under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code. Section 295 A of the Indian Penal Code reads as under :-

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant Sri Parikshit Saini has relied upon two judgments, one by the Gujarat High Court (Shalibhadra Shah and others Vs. Swami Krishna Bharati and another, 1981 Crl. L.J. 113) and another by the Jharkhand High Court (Swaraj Thackeray alias Raj Thackeray Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. [2008(2) AIR Jhar R 869]) to press his point home and submits that a prior sanction of the government is must in such cases. Learned counsel for the complainant i.e. respondent no. 4, Mr. Manish Arora on the other hand states that this provision will not apply in a complaint case.