The requirement of prosecution sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for offences alleged to have been committed by public servants in discharge of their official duties.

JUDGMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - The petitioner, who at the relevant time was posted as NaibTehsildar has sought quashing of FIR and also consequential proceedings including charges framed by the Court below in case arising out of FIR No. 207 of 2011.

2. The facts, as are relevant for the adjudication of this petition are that the above FIR was registered on the statement of Kajal Sharma D/o late Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma R/o Sekhupura P.O. Kandrori, P.S. Indaura, District Kangra, who stated that in the year 2007 she was studying in 10+1 at GSSS, Indaura and was seeking tuition from Ranjeet Singh Pathania S/o Sh. Madan Singh R/o Bari, P.S. Indaura. During the month of January 2008, Ranjeet Singh alongwith her mother came to her home with the offer to make marriage with Kajal. But her mother refused to accept his offer. After this, Ranjeet Singh started residing in her home with the consent of her mother. Ranjeet Singh and her mother used to beat and mentally torture her to get her consent to marry with him. During the year 2008, Ranjeet Singh quarreled with her and due to this, people of her village assembled at her home and raised objection that why an unknown/outsider is residing at their home. On this, her mother Anita Devi assured the villagers that she is going to solemnised the marriage of her daughter with Ranjeet Singh. On 9.9.2008 while she was in her school, Ranjeet Singh came there and told that her mother is out of sort. On this, she reached at her home with Ranjeet Singh and found that her mother was sitting with the mother of Ranjeet Singh Krishna Devi. They forced her to go Indaura with them. When they reached at Indaura they forced her to wear the bridal dress. After that, they took her to Tehsil Court, compelled her to sign on some documents and thereafter they told her that she has duly got married with Ranjeet Singh. At the time of her marriage, she was adolescent of 16 years old. After marriage, Ranjeet Singh used to beat her up and committed sexual intercourse with her without her consent. During the month of May, 2009, Ranjeet Singh and her mother beaten her and left her at the house of her maternal grandmother at Rait. In order to get rid from her mother and husband s maltreatment she left to Chandigarh to get some training. On 30.3.2010 she came to her home and her mother alongwith Ranjeet Pathania again beaten her up. During the month of April, 2010 she turned to Chandigarh. Later on, she telephonically informed her mother that now she does not want to reside with Ranjeet Singh. On this, her mother told her that she will never abdicate Ranjeet Singh from her house, but she can live without Kajal Sharma. On this the above case was registered.

3. During the course of investigation, it was found that the petitioner at the relevant time was posted as Naib Tehsildar, Indaura and had solemnised the marriage of Kajal Sharma on 09.02.2008 by attesting two affidavits in which Kajal Sharma has been shown as major. The date of birth of Kajal Sharma is contradicting the facts mentioned in both affidavits. The petitioner was legally bound to verify the name, parentage, date of birth and facts of affidavits produced before him for attestation. Thereafter criminal case came to be registered against Ranjeet Singh in which the petitioner was arraigned as an accused on the ground that he had attested false affidavits of marriage of Kajal Sharma, whose date of birth mentioned as 30.3.1991, whereas her actual date of birth is 30.3.1992 and thereafter have committed offence punishable under Sections 471, read with Section 120-B IPC and offence punishable under Sections 10, 11 and 20 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

4. After completion of investigation, even though the State refused to accord prosecution sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. yet the charges against the petitioner stands framed by the Court below on 25.5.2018 constraining him to file the instant petition.

5. It is vehemently argued by learned counsel