LAWS(P&H)-2013-10-309

HAKAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Decided On October 08, 2013
HAKAM SINGH Appellant
V/S
State Of Haryana And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the FIR No. 162 dated 19.04.2010 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 167 and 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Pipli, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, Chargesheet and the order dated 11.07.2011 (Annexure P -15 and P -15/A). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial court could not take cognizance of the matter in the absence of sanction for prosecution of the petitioner from the competent authority. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Om Prakash and others Vs. State of Jharkhand Through the Secretary, Department of Home, Ranchi -1 and another : 2012(4) R.C.R. (Crl) 662 wherein it was held as under: -

(2.) PROSECUTION case, in brief, is that the petitioner and his co -accused had committed cheating/forgery with regard to auction conducted on 19th April. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the petitioner. Vide order dated 11.07.2011, charges were framed against the petitioner and his co -accused. The said order was upheld by the Court of Revision vide order dated 23.08.2013. In the present case, allegations against the petitioner and his co -accused are that in fact they had conducted a fake auction by cheating and forging the record. Charges have been framed against the petitioner and his co -accused qua cheating and forgery. The said offence cannot be said to have been committed by the petitioner in exercise of his official duty.

(3.) AS per the judgment of the Apex Court in Bholu Ram's case (supra), no sanction for prosecution of an accused is required qua commission of offence of cheating/forgery. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner fails to advance the case of the petitioner. In the present case, petitioner cannot be said to have acted in excess of his official duty.