Prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC and Section 19 PC Act mandatory before directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC or registering FIR against public servant for offences in discharge of official duties; absence quashes proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

1. Heard Mr. Shobhit Shukla, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, learned APP for Respondent No. 1-State.

2. Mr. Shobhit Shukla, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, states that Respondent No.2 was the Complainant. He submits that the Respondent passed away on 1^st February 2022. He submits that, upon his demise, no rights would devolve to his legal representatives therefore, he submits that there is no need to substitute any legal representative of Respondent No.2. He seeks leave to delete Respondent No.2. He mentions that during the lifetime of Respondent No.2, he had filed an Application before the Sessions Court in Miscellaneous Complaint No.112 of 2006, requesting the withdrawal of the complaint. He submits that the Sessions Court, by a detailed order dated 14^th September 2007, permitted the withdrawal and consequently dismissed the Miscellaneous Complaint No. 112 of 2006. Mr. Shobhit Shukla, learned Advocate, therefore states that this Petition can be heard without substituting Respondent No.2. At the Petitioner's risk, leave is granted to delete Respondent No. 2. Mr. Shobhit Shukla states that the amendment will be carried out forthwith. Permission granted.

3. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereafter “Cr.P.C.”), the Petitioner assails the order dated 11^th August 2006 (hereafter “impugned order”) passed by the Special Judge, Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai (hereafter ‘Sessions Court’) in Miscellaneous Complaint No.112 of 2006, by which the Sessions Court allowed the Application filed by Respondent No.2 under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and directed the Investigation Officer to register an FIR and the consequent FIR No.49/2006 registered with the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Mumbai (hereafter “impugned FIR”) for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter “P.C. Act 1988”) and Sections 167, 406, 463, 464, 467, 468, 471, 420 read with Section 120 (B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”).

4. Rule in this Petition was issued on 18^th December 2006, and the Petitioner was secured by an interim order.

5. Mr. Shobhit Shukla, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, submits that the allegation in the private complaint and the impugned FIR against the Petitioner (Special Land Acquisition Officer at Dhanu), who is a “Public Servant,” relate to an act committed by the Petitioner during the discharge of his official duties. He submits that the allegation against the Petitioner appears only in paragraph nos. 8, 13 & 14 of Miscellaneous Complaint No.112 of 2006. He submits that since these facts are not in dispute, the Sessions Court could not have taken cognizance of the complaint, much less issued a direction under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. on 11^th August 2006 to register an FIR. He stresses that Respondent No.1 could not have registered an FIR without prior sanction under Sections 197 of the Cr.P.C. and 19 of the P.C. Act, 1988. In addition, he submits that in view of the order dated 14.09.2007 passed by the Sessions Court, the basis of the impugned order gets wiped out. Therefore, on these limited issues, he contends that the impugned order and FIR should be quashed.

6. Ms. Dabholkar, learned APP for the Respondent-State, submits that there is no sanction from the Competent