Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Mohan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)
1. This common order shall decide both the abovementioned petitions as they arise out of similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CRM-M 18904 -2017(O&M).
2. The petitioners have approached this Court for the second time by the present petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing of FIR No. 59 dated 21.05.2015 under Sections 420/467/468/120-B of IPC registered at Police Station Payal, District Ludhiana. (Annexure P-3)
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner had joined as a Clerk on 01.12.1994 with the Municipal Council, Payal, and was allotted the task of house tax assessment. On 07.05.2007, a resolution bearing no. 542 was passed by the Municipal Council directing a new assessment for the collection of tax to be made, owing to the allotment of new house numbers in the town. In lieu of the same, the petitioner along with other staff deputed in this regard, prepared the house tax assessment. In the meeting dated 28.06.2007, house tax assessment list was submitted. Thereafter, as per rules, the assessment list was pu
Failure to establish a prima facie case under Sections 417 and 465 of the IPC; lack of necessary sanction for prosecution of public servant mandates quashing of proceedings.
Prosecution of public servants for actions within official duties requires prior sanction under Cr.P.C., which was not obtained, resulting in quashing of the case.
(1) Cheating, forgery and conspiracy – If intent is on face of it is absent qua one of offences in same transaction, it is absent in respect of other offence as well.(2) Sections when put into a char....
Prosecution of public servants for actions in official duty requires prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., necessitating clear evidence of involvement in fraud for cognizance to stand.
Public servants cannot claim protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C for actions that fall outside the scope of their official duties, particularly in cases of forgery and misappropriation.
Sanction for prosecution of public servant – Section 197 Cr.P.C. does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission of a public servant while in service – It is restricted to only those ac....
Sanction for prosecution of public servant – Public servants have been treated as a special category in order to protect them from malicious or vexatious prosecution. At the same time, shield cannot ....
The judgment established the principle that a public servant requires sanction to prosecute for acts related to official duties, and emphasized the limited authority of the petitioner in executing de....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
