DINESHKUMAR AMTHABHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with'Section 482'of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short) for quashing and setting aside the order dated 19.5.2021 passed by learned J.M.F.C., Unjha District Mehsana in Criminal Inquiry No.2 of 2021. The petitioner has also prayed to quash and set aside all the consequential proceedings and actions taken by the concerned police authority including registration of FIR, if any.

(2.) Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Unwala has submitted that the present respondent no.2 has filed private complaint being Criminal Inquiry Case No.2 of 2021 before learned J.M.F.C., Unjha against the present petitioner and two others and requested the concerned Magistrate that direction be issued to Unjha Police Station to register the FIR. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate, by way of impugned order, taken the cognizance of all the offences alleged and thereafter directed the officer-in-charge of CID Crime, Gandhinagar branch to lodge FIR as per'Section 156(3)'of the Code for the offences punishable under'Sections 405,'406,'409,'464,'467,'471'and'120B'of the Indian Penal Code. Further direction was given to the said agency that after proper investigation, necessary report be filed within a period of sixty days. Learned Senior Advocate has assailed the aforesaid order mainly on the ground that the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the matter without prior sanction of the competent authority. It is submitted that the present petitioner is the Chairman of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee ('APMC' for short), Unjha. It is submitted that as per provisions contained in'Section 67'read with Section 42 of the Agriculture Produce Market Committees Act, previous sanction of the competent authority is required before taking the cognizance. Learned Senior Advocate has also referred to the provisions contained in'Section 197'of the Code.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Syed has opposed this petition and mainly contended that while passing the impugned order, the concerned Magistrate has not taken the cognizance of the offence and therefore the sanction of the competent authority is not required. Learned Senior Advocate has also contended that when the Magistrate passed an order of investigation under'Section 156(3)'of the Code, it cannot be said that he has taken cognizance of the offences, therefore sanction of the competent authority is not required. It is further submitted that the decisions upon which the reliance is placed by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are on the point of sanction under'Section 19'of the Prevention of Corruption Act ('P.C.Act' for short). The said decision would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.