Back
2019 Supreme(All) 1803
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PANKAJ BHATIA, J.
N.K.Mehrotra - Appellant
Versus
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow and Anr. - Respondent
U/S 482/378/407 No.2916 of 2016
Decided On : 15-11-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Anupam Mehrotra
For the Respondent:Govt. Advocate, Dr. Nutan Thakur (In Person)
The Lokayukta Act provides protection to Lokayuktas for acts done in good faith in the discharge of their duties, and the requirement of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. applies to public servants, including Lokayuktas.
Headnote:
Lokayukta Act - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Sections 166, 167, 195, 195-A, 196, 200, 211, 219, 500 I.P.C. - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, a retired Judge and former Lokayukta, U.P., sought quashing of criminal proceedings against him for alleged offences committed under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) while acting as Lokayukta.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the complaint was barred under Section 17(1) of the Lokayukta Act, and the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance without the required sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The Court quashed the criminal proceedings and the order taking cognizance.
Issues: (i) Whether the order dated 3.9.2015 amounts to ‘taking cognizance’, (ii) Whether the complaint as filed is barred under Section 17(1) of the Lokayukta Act, (iii) Whether the absence of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. rendered the C.J.M.'s actions erroneous, and (iv) Whether the complainant's status as a habitual litigant affected the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The Lokayukta Act provides protection to the Lokayuktas for acts done in good faith in the discharge of their duties. The Court interpreted the Act to ensure the Lokayukta's functioning without fear or favor. The Court also applied the test from Matajog Dubey v. H.C. Bhari to establish a reasonable connection between the act complained of and the discharge of official duty.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the criminal proceedings and the order taking cognizance, citing the protection under Section 17(1) of the Lokayukta Act and the requirement of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Anupam Mehrotra, Advocate on behalf of the applicant. No one appears for the opposite party no. 2. I have also heard learned AGA for the State.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of Case No. 8737 of 2015 (Dr. Nutan Thakur v. Sri N.K. Mehrotra) pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow for the offences allegedly committed by the applicant as Lokayukta, U.P. under Sections 166, 167, 195, 195-A, 196, 200, 211, 219, 500 I.P.C.
3. The brief facts, giving rise to the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are as under:-
The petitioner, a retired Judge of this Court, was appointed as a Lokayukta, Uttar Pradesh under the U.P. Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Lokayukta Act') and acted as a Lokayukta from 16.3.2006 till 31.1.2016.
4. It has been stated in the application that while the applicant was acting as a Lokayukta, a Complaint Case No. 3540 of 2014 dated 26.12.2014 was filed by the OP No. 2 before the applicant. The applicant in exercise of his powers found the complaint of the OP No. 2 as vexatious and frivolous and passed relevant orders under Section 10 (5) read with Section 10 (4) of the Lokayukta Act. A copy of the said decision has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the application.
5. The OP No. 2 herein challenged the said order dated 25.5.2015 passed by the applicant in a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 11178 (MB) of 2015 (Nutan Thakur v. State of U.P. and others), which is pending.
6. On 21.7.2015, a complaint was filed before the applicant acting as a Lokayukta against the husband of the opposite party no. 2 and on the said complaint the applicant acting as a Lokayukta conducted the investigation and after conducting the said investigation, submitted his report no. 04 of 2015 dated 24.8.2015 to the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. with his findings and recommendations, along with relevant document, material and evidence. The applicant, acting as a Lokayukta vide his said report dated 24.8.2015 made several recommendations against the husband of OP No. 2. The husband of the OP No. 2 challenged the said report of the Lokayukta dated 24.8.2015 by filing a Writ Petition No. 7964 (MB) of 2015 (Amitabh Thakur v. Sri N.K. Mehrotra and Others), which is pending.
7. In pursuance of the report of the Lokayukta dated 24.8.2015, the State Government acting upon said recommendation, lodged an F.I.R. dated 16.9.2015 through the Vigilance Establishment, Government of U.P. at Police Station Gomti Nagar, Lucknow under Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
8. Prior to the submission of the report dated 24.8.2015, a notice was got served on behalf of the parents of the husband of OP No. 2 dated 22.8.2015 purporting to be legal notice under Section 80 C.P.C. threatening the institution of a suit for damages and compensation.
9. On 3.9.2015, a complaint was filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the C.J.M., Lucknow alleging that the complainant is a civil activist and an advocate and is filing the complaint for the illegal acts of the applicant against the husband of the complainant while passing orders in Case No. 2583 of 2015. It was further alleged that while acting as a Lokayukta, the applicant has deliberately relied upon the evidences which he knew to be wrong and false and on half baked facts, which were well within the personal knowledge of the applicant and thus was guilty of wrongly relying upon non-existent evidence and knowing that the evidence was non-existent proceeded to pass an order against the provisions of the Lokayukta Act and the Lokayukta Complaint Rules, 1977. It was further alleged that the husband of the complainant had informed the applicant about the facts through written communication dated 12.8.2015 and 19.8.2015. In sum and substance, the allegations made in the complaint were that the applicant has passed a wrong order relying upon evidences which
