SACHIN SINGHAL Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Sachin Singhal has approached this Court through this revision petition under Sec. 397/401 Cr.P.C. for assailing the order dtd. 8/3/2019 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhoti Sadari, Pratapgarh whereby, the private complaint preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) It may be mentioned here that the complaint at hand was a second complaint on same facts filed by the petitioner in the court below. The previous complaint was rejected vide order dtd. 7/3/2017 which attained finality as the same was not challenged any further. It may be further mentioned here that the complaint of 2015 came to be filed by the petitioner-complainant by arraigning the then Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh as an accused. The petitioner complainant sought prosecution of the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh for the offences under Ss. 119, 155, 156 and 166 IPC alleging inter alia that he had sent a fax to the S.P. Office, Pratapgarh on 4/7/2014 complaining that his family had been attacked, his house was trespassed into and ransacked but the police officers of the Police Station Chhoti Sadari did not pay any heed to the complaint made by the petitioner in this regard. The petitioner herein alleged in his complaint that by failing to take action on his fax, the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh was responsible for the above offences. The complainant examined himself under Sec. 200 Cr.P.C. in support of the complaint. No document whatsoever was filed or proved by the complainant in support of the complaint lodged in the year 2015 and accordingly, the same was rejected vide order dtd. 7/3/2017. The trial court also held that the complaint could not be proceeded in absence of previous sanction for prosecution, mandatorily required under Sec. 197 Cr.P.C. Be that as it may. The petitioner did not challenge the order dtd. 7/3/2017 and instead lodged a second complaint in the court below which has also been rejected by order dtd. 8/3/2019 which is assailed in this revision.

(3.) Shri Singhal, learned counsel representing the petitioner complainant, vehemently and fervently urged that the earlier complaint was rejected because the petitioner could not file relevant documents in support thereof whereas in the second complaint all relevant documents, to be specific, the fax sent to the S.P. Office, Pratapgarh was annexed and hence, the trial court ought not to have rejected the complaint of the petitioner. In support of his contentions, Shri Singhal placed reliance on the following judgments: