AWADHESH NARAYAN MAURYA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 30.3.2012 whereby, the application of the applicant revisionist under Section 197 Cr.P.C. dated 22nd March, 2012 has been rejected.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist submits that the court has passed the order erroneously and illegally without appreciating the legal aspect of the matter. Learned counsel for the applicant revisionist further submits that admittedly, the accused applicant is a Government Servant and it is alleged that it is also obvious from the perusal of the order passed by the learned lower court that he acted illegally in the discharge of his official duty. So far as the question of sanction to prosecute, the learned lower court has merely observed in his order that on 21.4.2004 the cognizance has already been taken and the charge-sheet against the accused person has been submitted in the court and the writ petition of Smt. Damyanti vs. state of U.P. & others has been dismissed to quash the F.I.R. on 3rd September, 2011 by the court and the learned lower court has been directed to expedite the hearing of the case.

(3.) IN this regard, the ruling reported in (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) in the case of R.R. Chari v. State of U.P., wherein it has been held that " What is 'taking cognizance' has not been defined in the Criminal Procedure Code, and I have no desire now to attempt to define it. It seems to me clear, however, that before it can be said that any Magistrate has taken cognizance of any offence under Section 190(1) (a), Criminal Procedure Code, he must not only have applied his mind to the contents of the petition, but he must have done so for the purpose of proceeding in a particular way as indicated in the subsequent provisions of this Chapter,-proceeding under Section 200, and thereafter sending it for inquiry and report under Section 202. When the Magistrate applies his mind not for the purpose of proceeding under the subsequent sections of this Chapter, but for taking action of some other kind e.g. ordering investigation under section 156(3), or issuing a search warrant for the purpose of the investigation, he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of the offence."