The act of the petitioners in taking away the document was not part of their official duty, and thus, prior sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. was not required. At the stage of framing charges, only a prima facie case is to be seen, and a high degree of suspicion is sufficient to frame charges.

JUDGMENT

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. (Oral). - The prayer in this petition is for quashing of the order dated 20.12.2019 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib whereby charges under Sections 409/120-B of the IPC have been ordered to be framed, the order dated 29.11.2021 (Annexure P-7) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib whereby the revision of the petitioners stands dismissed in an FIR No. 116 dated 08.12.2018 registered under Sections 409 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) at Police Station GRP, Srihind District Fatehgarh Sahib and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant-Ram Singh Meena had got an FIR No.116 dated 08.12.2018 registered under Sections 409 and 120-B of the IPC at Police Station GRP, Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib against five accused persons namely Rakesh Kumar Malhotra (Arakshn Supervisor), Parvesh Walia (Ticket Supervisor), Brij Nandan, Anwar Ansari and Jarnail Singh. The allegations were that these accused persons were indulging in corruption in the Railway Department and because the complainant lodged a complaint against these persons, therefore, they hatched a conspiracy against him. On account of this fact, they had got one Sohan Lal a teacher at DAV, School, Khanna and other employees of the Railway Department to make a complaint against the complainant on the basis of which, the complainant was transferred from District Sirhind to District Ropar. The allegations further were that after the transfer of the complainant from District Sirhind to District Ropar, the accused persons namely Brij Nandan, Rakesh Malhotra and Anwar Ansari inspected the record of the complainant from time to time but found everything in order. The complainant had further stated that Brij Nandan and Rakesh Kumar Malhotra were continuously filing various complaints against him. On 04.08.2018, the accused persons took away and tampered with the relevant record pertaining to service period of the complainant from one Smt. Chanchai Bala, the details of which are reproduced hereinbelow:-

(i) LC No.370416 record file, forwarding note, Id proof were misplaced;

(ii) LC No.370431, Id proof changed;

(iii) LC No.370448 to 49, all forwarding note and Id proof were removed;

This was done so as to involve the complainant in a case and it resulted in the complainant being charge-sheeted.

The complainant had further stated the accused persons had committed various offence. On the basis of the said complaint and subsequent inquiry, the afore-mentioned FIR was registered against five above named accused persons, including the petitioners.

3. The Investigating Agency conducted a detailed investigation and a report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was submitted against Brij Nandan, Anwar Ansari and Jamail Singh. At the stage of framing of charges, the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, while discharging Jamail Singh directed that Brij Nandan and Anwar Ansari, the petitioners herein be charged under Sections 409/120-B of the IPC. The petitioners preferred a Criminal Revision Petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib and the complainant along with the State also challenged the said order whereby, Jarnail Singh had been discharged. The said three criminal revision petitions were decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib vide order dated 29.11.2021 (Annexure P-7). While the Criminal Revision Petition of the petitioners was dismissed, the case of Jamail Singh was remanded back for fresh consideration. It is these two judgments which have been impugned by the petitioners before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has firstly argued that in the absence of sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., the learned trial Court could not have framed charges against the petitioners. He argues that once, the Railway De