MANJI LALJI VAGHANI Vs. PRATAPSINH LAKHADHIRSINH JADEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in Criminal Misc.Application No.1875/2002 who happens to be respondent No.2 in Criminal Revision Application No.105/2002, filed a criminal complaint being criminal complaint No.1457/96 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Bhuj in Kachchh district against the contesting respondents in the first matter and petitioners in the second matter for offences punishable under sections 427, 447, 504 and 506 of IPC.

(2.) The case of the said petitioner in the first matter and the second respondent in the second matter, who will be hereinafter referred to as the complainant before the trial court, may be briefly stated as follows: That the contesting respondents in the first matter and the petitioners in the second matter who will hereinafter be referred to as the accused persons, demolished the house of the complainant and committed trespass in respect thereof. That they also gave threats and abuses to the complainant and committed the aforesaid offence. Process was issued and the accused persons appeared before the trial court. During the course of the trial, the accused persons submitted an application before the trial court stating that the offences alleged against the accused persons are such that the Court could not take cognizance of those offences without the previous sanction in accordance with the provisions of section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The trial court found that there was no sanction which was necessary and, therefore the trial court directed that the proceedings against the accused persons be dropped and the accused persons were ordered to be discharged from the aforesaid offences in exercise of powers under section 258 of the said Code.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the trial court, the complainant preferred criminal revision application No.12/99 before the Sessions Court, Kachchh at Bhuj. The learned Sessions Judge heard the revision application and disposed it of on 20.12.2001. There the learned Sessions Judge found that so far as the offences under sections 447 and 427 of IPC are concerned, sanction was required and in absence of a valid sanction, the court could not take cognizance. Therefore, the revision application was partly rejected with respect to the said two offence. So far as the offences punishable under sections 504 and 506 of IPC are concerned, the learned Sessions Judge found that these were the offences which had no connection with the official duties of the accused person and therefore, sanction was required under section 197 of the said Code. On the said findings, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision application and set aside the order of the trial court and directed the trial court to proceed ahead with criminal case No.1457/96 against the accused persons with respect to the aforesaid two offence in accordance with law. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the Sessions Court, the complainant has preferred the aforesaid criminal misc. application No.1875/2002. There the complainant had contended that the learned Sessions Judge had committed error in holding that the offences punishable under section 447 and 427 of IPC require sanction and, therefore, that part of the judgment of the Sessions Court has been challenged in this petition by the original complainant. On the other hand, the accused persons have challenged the second part of the judgment and the order of the Sessions court in criminal revision application no.105/2002 stating that the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error in holding that no sanction was required for the offences punishable under section 504 and 506 of IPC.