R.C. GUPTA Vs. KANTI KRISHAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS necessary for the disposal of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are that Shri Kanti Krishan Sharma, Assistant Engineer, Hydel, Project, HSEB, respondent was transferred to the office of Chief Engineer, Hydel Project, Yamunagar, on August 18, 1989. He reported for duly on September 1, 1989. At that time the Chief Engineer of the Hydel Project posted at Yamunanagar was Shri R. C. Gupta, petitioner herein. The Chief Engineer, directed the respondent, to join at Bhurd Kalan. The respondent was, however, not interested in joining at the said station. He, therefore, did not join there. Instead he filed a civil suit on December 27, 1989 and obtained an injunction order from the Court staying the operation of his posting at Bhurd Kalan. He thus continued being at Yamunangar. On November 9, 1989, the respondent filed a complaint under Sections 494/500 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jagadhri, against the petitioner, alleging that a day earlier on November 8, 1989, at about 11 a.m. he had gone to the office of the petitioner to request him to allocate work to him. At that time two persons were present in the office of the petitioner. The petitioner lost his temper and addressed him as Goonda and Badmash while saying that he was thinking of getting him suspended when he had come to talk about law and his right. After recording preliminary evidence, learned Magistrate summoned the petitioner for the aforesaid offence by order dated May 23, 1990, Annexure P-4. The petitioner seeks quashing of the complaint as also the summoning order as abuse of the process of the Court on several grounds.

(2.) THE contention of Shri Vijay K. Jindal, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the Magistrate could not take cognizance of the alleged offence without sanction of the State Government under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He submitted that the respondent-Assistant Engineer had approached the petitioner-Chief Engineer to allot him work at the headquarters of the Hydel Project, namely, Yamunanagar. What the Chief Engineer allegedly told him by way of reply must, therefore, be deemed to be a part of the transaction of the discharge of official duties by the Chief Engineer. He placed reliance on two decisions of this Court. The first decision relied on by him is Balbir Singh v. Mohinder Singh, 1984(2) Recent Cr. R. 385. Mohinder Singh was a Junior Sports Officer in the Directorate of Sports. He approached Shri Balbir Singh, Director of Sports, in the latter's office accompanied by a certain person to explain his difficulties and to request him for transfer to a certain station. The Director lost his temper and hurled abuses on Mohinder Singh, called him a corrupt officer and further said that he did not want to see his face. It was also alleged that Shri Balbir Singh told Mohinder Singh "Kutia Chumara Men Har Same Tenu Naukri Ton Kadan Di Sochda Han, Te Tu Menu Badli Bare Kehenda hen". Mohinder Singh filed a complaint in which Balbir Singh was summoned. It was against the complaint as well as the summoning order that Balbir Singh filed a revision in the High Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court referred to S.B. Saha and others v. M.S. Kochar, 1979 Cr. L.J. 1367 (SC) and extracted the following passage from the said authority.

(3.) SHRI Jagdev Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the words attributed to the petitioner had no connection whatsoever with discharge of official duty and therefore there was no question of any sanction. He cited Bhagwan Prasad Srivasta v. N.P. Mishra, 1970 Cr. L.J. 1401. In this authority also, the apex Court reiterated the earlier observation that Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is neither to be too narrowly construed nor too widely. In so far as the proposition of law as concerned, there is no, difference in the observations in Bhagwan an Prasad Srivastava's case (supra) and the later decision of three Judges Bench in S. B. Saha's case (supra). The authority in Bhagwan Prasad Srivastava's case is, however, distinguishable on facts and the same is of the no assistance to respondent. The two decisions, to which reference has been made by Shri Jindal, are applicable to the facts of the present case and therefore, the Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance of the complaint in the absence of sanction of the State Government under Section 17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Continuance of the complaint and trial of the petitioner in these circumstances is an abuse of the process of Court,