TEKAN RAJ Vs. SOM NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of complaint No.234/02 dated 5.6.2002 lodged by the respondent under Sections 354, 506, 166/167, 217/218 and 120 -B Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), order dated 3.9.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra and the summoning order dated 18.10.2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra whereby the petitioner was summoned to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 166 and 217 IPC.

(2.) SOM Nath respondent filed a complaint Annexure P -1 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra against Sanjay son of Shree Chand and the petitioner who was posted at that time as Sub Inspector and SHO in Police Station City Thanesar. As per the allegations in the complaint, Sanjay had tried to outrage the modesty of his daughter and a complaint was given to the petitioner on 12.01.2002 in the Police Station City, Thanesar. No FIR was registered on the basis of complaint despite repeated requests. In the meanwhile accused No.1 - Sanjay through his parents in collusion with petitioner approached the complainant to settle the matter. On 17.1.2002, petitioner asked the complainant to give fresh application regarding the incident but the complainant refused. A complaint against the petitioner was submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra on 19.01.2002. It was at this juncture, the complainant came to know that an FIR for the offences under Sections 354 and 506 IPC had been registered against accused Sanjay on 17.01.2002. The grouse of the complainant was that the FIR should have been registered on 12.01.2002 when the complaint was given. The petitioner with dishonest intention and in order to save accused Sanjay, had not registered the FIR, thereby committing the offences punishable under Sections 166/167 and 217/218 read with Section 120 -B IPC.

(3.) THE trial Court vide order dated 22.3.2005 dismissed the complaint against accused No.1 Sanjay as police had registered a case against him. The complaint was dismissed against the petitioner with the observations that no offence was committed by him and the complaint was bad for want of sanction as required under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.').