R. N. GOYAL Vs. D.S. JASPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order of the Judicial Magistate 1st Class, Chandigarh dated Sept. 9, 1993.

(2.) The petitioner, who is an employ see of the Punjab Tourism Development Corporation filed a criminal complaint bearing No. 39 dated Aug. 19, 1988 against six accused for the offences under Sections 211,465,500 and 120-B, Penal Code read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the accused lodged a false First Information Report against the complainant with the Central Police Station Sector 17, Chandigarh to harm the complainant and therefore, the accused committed an offence punishable under Sections 500, Penal Code and other sections. The learned Magistrate by his order dated April 29, 1989, took the case on file against Accused Nos. 1 and 2 while dismissing the same against Accused 3 to 6. accused 1 and 2 approached this Court for quashing the proceedings. The dismissal of the complaint against Accused Nos. 3 to 6 has become final. This Court by an order dated March 2 i, 1991, set-aside the order of the learned magistrate dated April 29, 1989, summoning Accused 1 and 2 and remanded the matter to the learned magistrate for deciding whether it was necessary to obtain sanction as provided under Sec. 197 of the Code Criminal Procedure before taking cognizance of the offence against the accused. After remand, the learned magistrate passed the impugned order dated Sept. 9, 1993, holding that the sanction of the Punjab Government was necessary before proceeding against Accused 1. The complaint against Accused 2 abated since Accused 2 died and accordingly dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred the above revision petition. The question to be decided in this case is whether a sanction as required under Sec. 197 Crimial P.C. is necessary to take cognizance of the case against Accused 1.

(3.) There is no dispute that Accused 1 who is the respondent is an Officer belonging to the Indian Administrative Service. At the relevant time, he has been posted as Managing Director of the Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Limited which is a Government Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act. The complainant was working at the relevant time as Manager personnel & Administration, Punjab Tourism Development Corporation. According to the complainant, the respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner with the Central Police Station, Sector-17, Chandigarh, for the offences under Sections 448, 353, 380 and 506 read with Sec. 34, Indian Penal Code. It is an admitted fact that the said complaint was lodged by the respondent with the Police in his official capacity as Managing Director, Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Limited. According to the petitioner, as a result of the complaint lodged by the respondent with the police, his reputation has been lowed down in the eyes of his relatives and friends and, therefore, the respondent committed offences punishable under Sections 200 and 500, Indian Penal Code.