ANANT KUMAR SINGH Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R C. Verma, ACJ. This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the Charge-sheet and criminal pro ceeding arising thereof, contained in Annexure No. l to the writ petition, includ ing the order of cognizance of the said crime number, contained in Annexure No. 1-A to the writ petition, in case No. 42 of 1996 Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and others versus Anant Kumar Singh and oth ers pending in the Court of Judicial Magis trate (CBI), Dehradun arising out of R. C. No. 2 (S) of 1995 and 3 (3) of 1995, under Section 302, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that allegations contained in the Charge sheet relating to the discharge of the offi cial duties of the petitioner being a public servant are incorrect. The sanction sought by CBI under Section 197 Criminal Pro cedure Code has been refused by the State Government and the CBI has not chal lenged the said refusal order by the State Government. Therefore, the learned Mag istrate has no right and jurisdiction either to take cognizance or to proceed against the petitioner and the entire proceedings on the basis of Charge-sheet is liable to be quashed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are stated thus; that the protagonists of the Uttarakhand agitation had organized a rally at Delhi on 2. 10. 1994 to demonstrate against the reservation policy of the State Government and to press their demand for separate Statehood. Although the N. C. T. Government of Delhi had granted them permission to hold rally, it had banned the carrying of arms spears lathis or any other lethal weapon in the whole of Delhi and requested the U. P Government to make proper arrangement for search and not to permit any rallyists to enter Delhi with these weapons. Government of India also issued detailed instructions regarding promulga tion of prohibitory order, arrangements of search, seizure and arrests in cases of vio lation of prohibitory order, round the clock continuous vigilance, surveillance and patrolling and exchange of information. In the forenoon of 30. 9. 1994 the Divisional Commissioner, Meerut Division held a meeting of all the District Magistrate, Sen ior Superintendents of Police/superintend ents of Police of the six districts of the divi sion in which the Inspector General (Po lice), Meerut Zone and the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Meerut Range also par ticipated. In this meeting the officers were instructed to make proper arrangements for the checking of bus permits, arms etc. in their respective districts. In the same after noon a meeting was also held at the level of the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to re view the preparations made by the State Government in this regard in which the I. G. and D. I. G. , Meerut Zone/range also par ticipated. In furtherance of the decisions taken in the meeting held at various levels and verbal instructions received from the Director General of Police, UP the D. I. G. , Meerut Range issued written instructions in this regard on 1. 10. 1994. All these let ters/instructions have been annexed in the writ petition as Annexures 3 to 7.

(3.) THE petitioner challenged the judg ment of the High Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of SLP No. 7920 of 1996. THE Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the entire judgment and order dated 9. 2. 1996 passed by the High Court, Allahabad, vide its judgment and order dated 13. 5. 1999. THE Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Judges should have avoided making observations concerning matters which are pending considerations by the subordinate courts. Such observa tions regarding commissions of various of fences were premature and bad in law and further directions of the High Court, that no sanction is required, has also been set aside.