The judgment establishes the principle that actions purportedly done in discharge of official duties require prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., and that the abuse of the process of the Court can lead to the quashing of complaints.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. Petitioner Shri Vinod Krishna Kaul, who retired from the post of Director General. Bureau of Police Research and Development, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the summoning order dated 14.5.1992 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar as well as the complaint (Annexure P-17) filed by the respondent against him under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. On 2.7.1990, the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging therein that when the respondent was posted as Deputy Director (Training), Bureau of Police Research and Development, New Delhi, the petitioner who was his senior officer, made some personal adverse remarks against the respondent and his family members. When the respondent requested the petitioner not to make such remarks, he started having the grudge against him. It was further alleged that on 14.11.1987. The respondent travelled in his own car from Delhi to Chandigarh along with his wife and son and he submitted that T.A. bills in this regard. The petitioner instead of clearing those bills got some interpolation made in the T.A. bills to show that the respondent and his family members traveled actually by train and claimed false T.A. contrary to Rules. It was alleged that in this regard the petitioner addressed various communications to the Railways and other authorities and made the publicity that an enquiry was being held for a false claim of transfer T.A. by the respondent. Because of that false propaganda and communication, the image of the respondent degraded in the eyes of his friends, relatives and public. This was done by the petitioner on account of his personal vengeance with ill motive and the same was not done in discharge of his official duties in any manner.

3. In the aforesaid complaint, the petitioner was summoned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar under Section 500 I.P.C. vide order dated 14.5.1992. The said summoning order as well as the complaint have been challenged in this petition on the following grounds:-

4. Firstly that the petitioner was a public servant and whatsoever enquiry he had held and the communication made, he had done the same in discharge of his official duties being a superior officer of the respondent. Therefore, no action can be initiated or no cognizance can be taken against him on the complaint filed by the respondent for the alleged official act without obtaining the prior permission from the Central Government as provided under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and Rule 17 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 . Section 197 Cr.P.C. disables the Court from taking cognizance on the complaint of the respondent and the aforesaid Rule 17 disables the complainant from taking recourse to the Court.

Secondly that the Court at Hisar lacks territorial jurisdiction in view of the averments made in the complaint. The commission of offence, if any, was alleged to have been committed at New Delhi. No part of the alleged cause of action insofar as the petitioner herein is concerned, at least arises or touches Hisar. The false T.A. claim of the respondent was tendered by him at New Delhi, the disciplinary authority and the inquiry authority (Central Vigilance Commission) are located at New Delhi. All the witnesses cited by the complainant as also the petitioners, are from New Delhi. The complainants false T.A. claim pertains to the journey from Delhi to Chandigarh. Thus, from the perusal of the contents of the complaint, the Court at Hisar was having no territorial jurisdiction and in view of Section 177 Cr.P.C. the alleged offence should be inquired into or tried by a Court in whose local jurisdiction the same was committed.

Thirdly, that a bare reading of the complaint does not disclose any offence of defamation against the petitioner. The ingredients of Section 499 I.P.C. were no