The requirement of obtaining sanction under the amended provision of section 156 of Cr. P.C., 1973 for investigation against a public servant in discharge of official duties, and the necessity for the allegations in the complaint to make out the necessary ingredients for the offenses registered.

Mangesh S. Patil, J.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties matter is heard finally.

2. This is an application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for quashment of F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 263 of 2016 registered with Washi Police Station, District Osmanabad for the offence punishable under Section 306, 167 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Washi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 257 of 2016 dated 23.12.2016, whereby the learned Magistrate passed an order under section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C., 1973 and in pursuance whereof the aforementioned F.I.R. has been registered.

3. Stated in brief the facts leading to the filing of this application are as under:

The husband of the respondent No. 2 by name Mahadeo had borrowed money from a private money lender and the latter had extorted huge amount under the guise of recovering interest against a paltry loan of Rs. 50,000/-. The money lender had allegedly recovered more than Rupees Thirteen Lakhs and still was insisting for more. Fed up with such harassment Mahadeo hanged himself to a tree on 04.10.2015.

The officer in charge of the Police Station, Washi registered Accidental Death case No. 59 of 2015 on the basis of the information furnished by Mahadeo's father. Inquiry was made by Police Head Constable Choudhari, B.No. 323. During that inquiry two suicidal notes found in the pocket of Mahadeo were seized under a panchnama. In one of the chits (Exhibit-R 2) he had narrated the aforementioned facts of having obtained loan of Rs. 50,000/- and in spite of having paid more than Rupees Thirteen to Fourteen Lakhs the money lender was demanding more money and that is why he was committing suicide.

The respondent No. 2 is the widow of the deceased according to her the applicant was posted as a Police Inspector at Washi Police Station at the relevant time. She used to approach him to inquire as to what steps he was intending to take on the basis of the suicidal note. He used to send her back either by saying that he would be transmitting suicidal note to the handwriting expert or that it was already sent to the handwriting expert. However, he never sent the suicidal note for any such examination of handwriting expert, just to help the money lender. She ultimately lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of Police and filed a private complaint in the form of Misc. Criminal Application No. 257 of 2016. The learned Magistrate directed the matter to be inquired into by passing an order under section 156(3) of Cr. P.C., 1973 On the basis of such order the concerned Police Station registered the offence as mentioned herein-above. Hence this application.

4. According to the applicant, the complaint has been lodged with mala fide intention and without any basis. He has admitted that the suicidal note was recovered and seized under a panchnama during the inquiry of the accidental death case. The father of the deceased Mahadeo had no grievance and on the basis of his request the accidental death case was registered. All the while the suicidal note was in the custody of Police Head Constable Choudhari who was inquiring into the accidental death case and the applicant had no role to play. The complaint has been filed against him with a vengeance. Even if the contents of the complaint are accepted at their face value the offence punishable under Section 306, 167 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. cannot be made out. Lastly, it has been contended that in view of amendment to section 156 of the Cr. P.C., 1973 which has come in to effect in the year 2016, the respondent No. 2 had not obtained any sanction to prosecute the applicant, for want of such sanction the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order.

5. We have heard the learned Advocate for the applicant as well as the learned A.P.P. The lea