Bank employees as public servants do not require prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC for RPC offences. Magistrates must apply mind and scrutinize vague, unsubstantiated complaints before issuing process to establish prima facie case.

JUDGMENT :

RAJNESH OSWAL, J.

1. The petitioners (petitioner No. 1, the then Branch Manager, Kotranka, Rajouri Branch of J&K Bank Ltd. and petitioner No. 2, Zonal Head, Jammu West Zone, Rajouri of J&K Bank Ltd.) have filed the instant petition for quashing the proceedings of the complaint No. 77/complaint, titled “Shafiq Ahmed vs. Jasmeet Singh and another” as well as the order dated 27.10.2018, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajouri (for short “the trial court”) has issued the process against the petitioners for commission of offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 420 RPC.

2. Quashing of the proceedings is sought on the ground that the learned trial court erred in issuing process without first directing an investigation or inquiry. The petitioners contend that the complaint is based on frivolous and unsubstantiated allegations that do not warrant the initiation of criminal proceedings.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are public servants within the meaning of Section 21 of RPC, and as such, they cannot be prosecuted without prior sanction from the competent authority under Section 197 Cr. PC. He further submits that the learned Magistrate ought to have directed an investigation instead of taking cognizance and issuing process against the petitioners. It is also submitted that the learned trial court has issued the process in utter disregard to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled, ' Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate reported in (1994) 5 SCC 749

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has submitted that Section 197 of Cr. PC. is not applicable in the instant case, as such, the petition is misconceived and further that it is the prerogative of the Magistrate to either direct registration of FIR or to take cognizance and issue process against the accused on the basis of complaint submitted by the complainant. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case titled, ' State Bank of India Anantnag vs. G. M. Jamsheed Dar ’ JKJ Online 73149.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The record indicates that the respondent filed a complaint asserting that petitioner No. 1, acting on the instructions of petitioner No. 2, took Rs. 2.50 lakhs from him on the promise of providing employment. The respondent claims that his subsequent requests for the job were met with threats. He further alleges that on 25.10.2018, after being called to the J&K Bank Branch by petitioner No. 1, he was subjected to abusive language by both petitioners.

7. Upon the filing of the complaint, the learned trial court recorded the statements of the respondent and his witness, Ajaz-ul-Haq. On the basis of said preliminary evidence, the learned trial court proceeded to issue process against the petitioners for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 504, and 506 of the RPC.

8. The primary contention raised by the petitioners is that the criminal proceedings are not maintainable in the absence of prior sanction as mandated under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. It is contended that the petitioners, being public servants, are entitled to the protection afforded under the said provision and, therefore, the learned Trial Court could not have taken cognizance of the alleged offences without obtaining the requisite sanction from the competent authority. The failure to obtain such s