Failure to establish a prima facie case under Sections 417 and 465 of the IPC; lack of necessary sanction for prosecution of public servant mandates quashing of proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

(JITENDRA KUMAR, J.)

The present petition, under Section 482 Cr.PC, has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the impugned order dated 03.08.2016 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-III, Gopalganj in Cr. Revision No. 1034 of 2013 and the order dated 11.07.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class in Criminal Complaint Case No. 3288 of 2012, whereby learned Sessions Court has dismissed the revision petition upholding the order dated 11.07.2013, whereby ld. Judicial Magistrate has directed issuance of summons against the accused including the petitioner finding prima facie case under Sections 417 and 465 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

Prosecution Case

2. The criminal proceeding was initiated by the Criminal Complaint bearing No. 3288 of 2012 filed by one Hari Mohan Pandey, who is O.P. No.2 herein alleging that the land in question belongs to him on account of gift deed executed by Ramchandra Pandey and he is in possession of the property. However, co-accused Rameshwar Pandey, claiming to be adopted son of Ramchandra Pandey, has executed sale deed of the land to co-accused Anand Mishra, who is also part of conspiracy of the illegal transaction and accused Amit Kumar Sinha, who is petitioner herein was Sub-Registrar, Gopalganj, where the sale deed was executed by the accused Rameshwar Pandey in favour of the co-accused Ramashish Pandey. The alleged date of occurrence have been mentioned in the complaint as 26.09.2012, 06.09.2012 and 30.08.2012.

Factual background

3. During enquiry, the complainant was examined under Section 200 of Cr.PC and thereafter, learned Judicial Magistrate directed issuance of summons against the accused including the petitioner finding prima facie case under Sections 417 and 465 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . Petitioner subsequently preferred criminal revision against the summoning order dated 11.07.2013 bearing Crminal Revision No. 1034 of 2013, which was rejected by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge-III, gopalganj by the impugned order dated 03.08.2016.

4. I heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2.

Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is a government official, posted as District Sub- Registrar, Gopalganj and he has been implicated only on account of his being District Sub-Registrar at Gopalganj. There is no any other specific allegation against the Petitioner in the complaint. He further submits that no government official can be prosecuted unless there is sanction for the prosecution granted by Competent Authority under Section 197 Cr.PC. But in the present case, no sanction has been obtained, whereas the alleged registration of sale-deed by the District Sub-Registrar, Gopalganj has been done in discharge of his official duty and in such situation grant of sanction is sine qua non for institution and continuation of the prosecution of the District Sub-Registrar, Gopalganj.

6. He further submits that even as per the alleged facts and circumstances, no offence is made out. In fact, it is a dispute of civil nature in regard to right and title to the property left behind by deceased Ramchandra Pandey and the accused Rameshwar Pandey, who has executed sale deed as son of Ramchandra Pandey. However, as per the complainant, Ramchandra Pandey died issueless and he had executed gift deed in favour of the complainant and hence, Rameshwar