IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Karamjit Singh, J.
Vinay Pratap Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Haryana & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-M-18509-2020 with CRM-M-19253-2020 with CRM-M-19290-2020 with CRM-M-19317-2020
Decided On : 19-10-2022
The criminal complaint filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against public servants for various offences was challenged. The Court held that no cognizance can be taken without previous sanction for offences under various Acts. The impugned order was set aside as it was passed without due application of mind and in the absence of valid sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Fact of the Case:
The criminal complaint was filed against public servants and private individuals for various offences including encroachment, illegal construction, and environmental violations in Gurugram. The complainant alleged illegal possession and construction in a notified 'open space' and violations of multiple statutory provisions.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the impugned order was illegal as it was passed without due application of mind and in the absence of valid sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The complaint was not accompanied by a sanction order of the competent authority, and no prior notice was issued by the complainant for prosecution under various Acts.
Issues: The issues included the legality of the impugned order, the requirement of previous sanction for offences under various Acts, and the complainant's locus standi.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that no cognizance can be taken without previous sanction for offences under various Acts. The impugned order was set aside as it was passed without due application of mind and in the absence of valid sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Final Decision: The impugned order dated 3.7.2020 was set aside, and the petitions were allowed in favor of the petitioners.
JUDGMENT
Karamjit Singh, J. - This order will dispose of above-mentioned four connected petitions challenging impugned order dated 3.7.2020 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Gurugram in exercise of the powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C vide which the criminal complaint bearing No.COMI-04/2020 dated 3.7.2020 titled as Raman Sharma Vs. K. Makrand Pandurang and others, has been sent to the Police Station Sector-10-A, Gurugram for lodging of FIR and investigation and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner(s).
2. In CRM-M-18509-2020, the case of the petitioner-Vinay Pratap Singh is that he is a member of Indian Administrative Services and since 31.12.2019, he is discharging his duties as Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Gurugram honestly and with utmost sincerity.
3. In CRM-M-19253-2020, the case of the petitioners is that petitioner No.1-Jitetnder Yadav is a serving IAS Officer and at present is posted as Administrator, Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran, Sector-14, Gurugram while petitioner No.2-Vivek Kalia is a serving HCS Officer and is currently posted as Estate Officer-II, Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran, Infocity, Sector-34, Gurugram and are discharging their duties honestly and with utmost sincerity.
4. In CRM-M-19290-2020, the case of the petitioners is that petitioner No.1-Ravi Parkash Sihag is holding charge of Link Officer, Senior Town Planner, Sector-14 Gurugram; petitioner No.2-Ved Parkash Sehrawat is posted as District Town Planner (Enforcement), Gurugram and petitioner No.3-Ranndil Sher Jatinder Singh Batth is a District Town Planner (Planning & Enforcement), Gurugram and are discharging their duties honestly and with utmost sincerity.
5. In CRM-M-19317-2020, the case of the petitioner-K.Makrand Pandurang is that he is presently posted as Director Town and Country Planning, Haryana and is discharging his duties honestly and with utmost sincerity.
6. The aforesaid criminal complaint was filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by complainant/respondent No.2 against aforesaid petitioners and some other public servants and 4 private persons for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 166, 109, 188, 212, 268, 269, 278, 283, 285, 286, 287, 290, 291, 336, 337, 338, 339, 403, 406, 420, 463, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Sections 3, 6, 12 of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963; Sections 250, 251, 260, 265, 39, 310, 380, 382, 384 of the Haryana Corporation Act, 1994; Sections 3, 10, 11, 12 of the Haryana Development and Regulations of Urban Areas Act, 1975; Sections 21, 22, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; Sections 11, 15, 16, 17, 19, 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986; Sections 20, 32, 33, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 45A, 46, 47, 48, 49 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1974, Sections 3A, 3B of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, Supersession of the Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000; Sections 133, 143, 461 Cr.P.C.; Sections 7, 8, 11, 12, 13(1)d and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Benami Transaction Act, 2018, Benami Properties Act, 2018.
7. That the summary of allegations as set out in the said criminal complaint is as under:-
i) That a complaint regarding encroachment, illegal construction, spilling garbage, collection of stones, cement, chemicals etc. and running commercial activities on land reserved as 'Green Area' (Green Belt) in the notified 'Open Space' in Sector 94, Gurugram, was filed by the complainant on 24.6.2020 to the various Government agencies/department and police.
ii) That the matter relates to illegal possession and construction of factories, warehouse, residential and commercial buildings in notified 'open space' in Sector 94, Gurugram.
iii) That Sector 94, Gurugram has been notified as Open Space by the Department of Town and C
Anil Kumar Vs. M.K Aiyappa and another
Maksud Saiyad Vs. State of Gujrat and others (2008) 5 SCC 668
AI
The court clarified that a Magistrate's discretion under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. must be exercised judiciously, especially regarding public servants requiring prior sanction under Section 197.
Prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC and Section 19 PC Act mandatory before directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC or registering FIR against public servant for official duty acts; absenc....
It is well settled law that if a judgment is referred to a larger Bench, proposition of law so enunciated in judgment does not lose its efficacy and it continues to remain a binding precedent till ov....
Seizer of contraband – Rejection of bail - Contraband seized is a commercial quantity and therefore Section 37 of the NDPS Act, is applicable to the case of the petitioner
Point of Law : High Court was absolutely right in setting aside the order of the Special Judge. Unlike Section 19 of the PC Act, the protection under Section 197 CrPC is available to the public serva....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that public servants, when allegedly committing an offence in discharge of their official duties, require prior sanction for prosecution under Sect....
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.