Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 805
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
A. Rasalraj - Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary to the Government The Highways & Minor Ports Department, Chennai - Respondent
W.P.(MD) No. 12739 of 2012 & MP(MD) No. 1 of 2012
Decided On : 20-07-2022
For the Petitioner: P. Jessi Jeeva Priya, N. Subramanian.
For the Respondent: N. Muthu Vijayan, Special Government Pleader.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the strict exercise of power to grant sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C, emphasizing the need for independent scrutiny, public interest, and protection available to the accused.
Headnote:
Sanction - Prosecution of Government Officials - Section 197 of Cr.P.C - [Sanction] - [Prosecution of Government Officials] - [Section 197 of Cr.P.C] - The court discussed the application of Section 197 of Cr.P.C, which protects official acts of government officials, and the need for independent scrutiny of records before granting sanction for prosecution. The court highlighted the importance of public interest and protection available to the accused in granting or refusing sanction, emphasizing that the power to grant sanction is to be exercised strictly.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought sanction to prosecute two officials of the Highways Department under Section 197 of Cr.P.C, alleging illegal demolition of a temple and physical assault. The respondent refused the sanction, leading to the filing of a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's request for sanction was vexatious and not in the public interest, as it was a counter blast to a criminal complaint lodged by the Highway officials against the petitioner and his family members. The court upheld the respondent's refusal to grant sanction for prosecution.
Issues: The issues involved the refusal of sanction to prosecute government officials under Section 197 of Cr.P.C, the alleged illegal demolition of a temple, physical assault, and the public interest in granting or refusing sanction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for independent scrutiny of records before granting sanction, the importance of public interest and protection available to the accused, and the vexatious nature of the petitioner's request for sanction.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the respondent's refusal to grant sanction for prosecution was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the letter No.3179/H.L.1/2009-19 dated 23.05.2012 on the file of the respondent herein and to quash the same and directing the respondent to pass appropriate order on the petition dated 18.02.2009.)
1. The writ petition has been filed challenging an order passed by the respondent herein under which the request of the petitioner seeking sanction to prosecute the two officials of the Highways Department under Section 197 of Cr.P.C was rejected.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that his father-in-law was the managing trustee of a temple in New Survey No.263, Udayarvilay, Viyanur Village, Kanyakumari District. Some third parties had filed W.P(MD).No.848 of 2007 before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court to remove the said temple as an encroachment on the ground that it is on the highways land. According to the writ petitioner, the Highways authorities and the Police authorities have illegally and with a malafide intention have demolished the temple by using JCB and Bulldozers. When the petitioner objected to the illegal demolition by referring to the pendency of civil suit, he was brutally attacked by the Sub Inspector of Police by name Krishnaraj and one Murugesan who was the Inspector of Police attached to Tiruvattar Police Station. The two officials of the Highways Department namely Anthony Xavier and one Sundaram, kicked the petitioner on his back and caused injuries. They further attacked him and used abusive, filthy and unparliamentary words in front of the police. The petitioner was forced to remove his shirt and he was seated half naked in front of his in-laws and family members and other general public. The petitioner had further contended that he was falsely implicated in Crime No.73 of 2008. Since the officials of the Police Department and Highways Department committed serious offence, he lodged a complaint before the Police and FIR was registered in Crime No.186 of 2008. However, the police authorities have closed the case as mistake of fact. Since the police complaint was closed as mistake of fact, he was constrained to file a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram in CMP.No. 2770 of 2009. However, the said complaint was not taken on file and it was adjourned from time to time for production of sanction order as contemplated under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., Since he could not produce the same in time, the said CMP.No.2770 of 2009 was disposed of on 30.05.2012 with liberty to file a fresh private complaint along with copy of the sanction order of the Government.
3. The petitioner had further contended that he had sent a representation to the respondent herein on 18.02.2009 followed by a reminder on 17.09.2010 seeking grant of sanction for prosecuting two officials of the Highways Department. Since the representation was not disposed of, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.3968 of 2011 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent herein to dispose of his representation. The said writ petition was allowed on 22.02.2011 directing the authorities to dispose of the representation.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that the first respondent has passed the impugned order on 23.05.2012 rejecting the request for sanction. The said order was under challenge.
5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner without referring to any material and other records available on file, the present impugned order has been passed without any application of mind. He had further contended that the two officials of the Highways Department have exceeded their jurisdiction and they have beaten the writ petitioner and used abusive language. This fact should have been properly considered by the first respondent herein before passing the impugned order.
6. The learned counsel had further contended
