ASHOK GAUTAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner brought a private complaint against A.S. Chawla, then SP Kaithal, Hari Kailash, Inspector, CIA Staff, Kaithal, Ganga Bishan, ASI CIA Staff, Kaithal and Nar Singh, SI Incharge, PP Huda, Kaithal all of whom are arrayed as respondents No.3 to 6 in the present petition. The criminal complaint was filed under Sections 192, 201, 217, 218, 221, 418, 503 and Section 506 IPC against opposite parties, Balwinder Jot Singh, Satnam Kapoor and Mahboob Khan all residents of Delhi and the same was forwarded to SHO Police Station City, Kaithal for necessary action . It is not necessary to go into the nature of the allegations made in the complaint for purposes of the present decision in view of issues debated before this Court with reference to the relief sought. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal vide his order dated 13.10.2004 held that the complaint was barred by Section 197 Cr.P.C. since it was brought against public servants serving in connection with the affairs of the State and, therefore, no cognizance could be taken for commission of alleged offences in the absence of sanction for prosecution of the accused by the State Government. Accordingly, the Trial Court directed that a letter be issued to the Government of Haryana to consider the question of grant or refusal of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C to prosecute the present respondents No.3 to 6.

(2.) Dissatisfied with the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal dated 13.10.2004, the petitioner carried a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal upheld the order of the trail Court that no cognizance could be taken of the alleged offences in the absence of sanction to prosecute as provided under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The Revisional Court exercising its jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. passed the order dated 13.10.2005 dismissing the revision petition RBT No.95 of 2005 in the absence of sanction order. Relentless against his pursuit against respondents No.3 to 6, the petitioner moved yet another application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal on 3.2.2007 for summoning the accused on the ground that law did not require sanction to prosecute the respondents and the accused be summoned to face trial. It was conceded that no sanction order had been passed. The trial court found that this application was filed in disguised review of the previous order which is not permissible. The application was dismissed in limine by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal vide order dated 29.3.2007. The petitioner yet again filed a revision petition against the order dated 29.3.2007 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal. The Court below forced to pass an order at the behest of the petitioner, again heard and wrote a detailed order dated 7.2.2007 holding that the revision petition was an abuse of the process of the Court. The Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal noticed that the petitioner had suppressed an order dated 10.5.2006 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. No.6904-M of 2005. This order had repelled the challenge to the order dated 13.10.2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal and had dismissed the criminal miscellaneous as barred by Section 399 (3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner had suppressed before the High Court the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal in his application dated 3.2.2007 and had compelled the Court to pass an order dated 29.3.2007 and waste its time. Relentless in his pursuit, the petitioner filed yet another Criminal Miscellaneous No.52782-M of 2007 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 29.3.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal and the order dated 7.7.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal. This Court vide order dated 23.10.2008 dismissed the petition. It was argued before this Court that no prior sanction was required for prosecuting respondents No.3 to 6 herein. This Court held that there was neither irregularity nor infirmity in both the orders in deciding the question which were upheld.

(3.) Still dissatisfied with the order of this Court dated 23.10.2008, the petitioner preferred an SLP before the Supreme Court which was dismissed on 13.8.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner continued with his barrage of representations, requests etc. to the State Government, the Chief Minister, Haryana, one after the other and ultimately, came back again to this Court in Crl. Misc. No.2316-M of 2010 claiming that he had moved a representation (P-8) before the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana for grant of sanction for prosecution of respondents No.2 to 5 (respondents No.3 to 6 herein) but no action was taken. The past history of the case was not disclosed and simply a direction was sought for decision on the representation. This Court was kept in the dark and was misled in passing the order dated 3.2.2010 directing the Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana to look into the allegations contained in the representation and decide the same by passing a speaking order thereon in accordance with law.