GITA GOPI
Kantibhai Ramjibhai Damor – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent – State.
2. By way of this application, the applicant seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 23.06.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchmahal, whereby the learned trial Court Judge rejected the application – Exhibit 34 which was submitted in Criminal Case No.3036 of 2010, praying discharge qua the First Information Report (FIR) registered with Vejalpur Police Station, Taluka Kalol, Panchmahal as C.R. No.I-12 of 2010, filed on 07.02.2010, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 465, 467, 468, 471, 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
3. The charge-sheet came to be filed to the facts that the father of the first informant, deceased – Jethabhai Khoyabhai, is the uncle of Vankar Dahyabhai Khoyabhai, the aunts – Pashiben and Laliben who are the co-owners of the ancestral land bearing Survey No.116/1 situated at Village Jitpura, District Panchmahal. As per the allegations, the accused No.4, i.e. Abdullah Haji Abdulrehman Batook in collusion with the other accused purchased the said land by R
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Paras Nath Singh reported in (2009) 6 SCC 372;
Matajog Dobey vs. H.C. Bhari reported in (1955) 2 SCR 925
P.K. Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim reported in 2001 (6) SCC 704
Harihar Prasad vs. State of Bihar reported in (1972) 3 SCC 89
Prakash Singh Badal & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in (2007) 1 SCC 1
Chandan Kumar Basu v. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 13 SCC 70 and
Punjab State Warehousing Corporation v. Bhushan Chander and Others reported in (2016) 13 SCC 44.
S.R. Munnipalli v. Bombay (1955 (1) SCR 1177)
State of Kerala v. Padmanabhan Nair (1999 (5) SCC 690)
State of Tamil Nadu v. V.R. Soundirarasu reported in (2023) 6 SCC 768
Sati Kanta Guha v. State of West Bengal reported in 1977 Cr.L.J. 1644
Rakesh Kumar v. State of Bihar reported in (2006) 1 SCC 557
B. Saha and Ors. v. M.S. Kochar reported in (1979) 4 SCC 177
Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1972 SC 545
A public servant's actions performed in the course of official duties may not require sanction for prosecution if the alleged offences are unrelated to those duties.
Public servants cannot be prosecuted without necessary sanction under Section 197 of the CPC. The court must evaluate evidence for a prima facie case while deciding discharge applications.
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.
(1) Sanction for prosecution of public servant – The provision must not be abused by public servants to camouflage commission of a crime under supposed colour of public office – While deciding issue ....
The protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not available to public servants who commit offenses that are not connected with the discharge of their official duties or who act in excess of their autho....
Cognizance of offences against public servants requires prior government sanction under Sections 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 197 of the Cr.P.C., even if the acts are alleged to be done....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the di....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.