B. VENKAT REDDY Vs. P.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Crl.R.C.Nos.1894 and 2594 of 2014 have been filed by A-1 and A-2 respectively against the orders, dtd. 2/4/2014, passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, in Crl.M.P.Nos.40 of 2014 and 61 of 2014 in S.C.No.456 of 2013, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, dismissed both the petitions seeking to discharge them from the offences alleged against them in the said S.C.No.456 of 2013.

(2.) In support of the said contention he relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari AIR 1956 SC 44; Pukhraj v. State of Rajasthan and another (1973) 2 SCC 701; Shankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das and another (2006) 4 SCC 584 and D.Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain (2020) 7 SCC 695. It is also submitted that prior to the private complaint, the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant did not complain that the revision petitioners beat him. It is further submitted that in the discharge application itself, the revision petitioners have taken a ground that there is no prior sanction of the Government before taking cognizance of the case and since the allegations levelled against the revision petitioners are made when they were discharging their official duty, the sanction is necessary. It is further submitted that even though two crimes were pending against the 2nd respondent, the Court below gave a finding that no case is pending against the 2nd respondent and as such, the said finding is contrary to the facts on record. It is also submitted that the prayer of the 2nd respondent in his private complaint is only for the offences under Ss. 324 and 342 of I.P.C., but at the time of taking cognizance, Sec. 2 (d) of Human Rights Act was referred. It is further submitted that the committal order should contain proper and valid reasons as to why the case is being committed to the Sessions Court, but on a reading of the committal order, it is clear that except stating the allegations, there is nothing indicates as to why the case was committed to Sessions Court. It is also submitted that the Human Rights Act provides State Human Rights Commission to deal with the situations, where the alleged violations of Human Rights have taken place. Without resorting the remedies available under the Human Rights Act, the 2nd respondent- de facto complainant made a complaint before the Magistrate and without appreciating the said fact, the learned Magistrate took cognizance, as if the offence has taken place by violating the Human Rights and committed the case to the Sessions Court, who in turn, without appreciating the same, dismissed the discharge application, though the revision petitioners have raised the above ground in their discharge application. It is further submitted that the act done by a public servant in good faith is protected and exempted them for prosecution and since there is no sanction, the revisions have to be allowed.

(3.) Since the revision petitioners are public servants, valid sanction is required to prosecute them. A perusal of the record would show that no prior sanction has been obtained before taking cognizance. In the absence of any such sanction, the trial Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case. Hence, the proceedings before the trial Court were void ab initio being without jurisdiction.