Back
2011 Supreme(MP) 876
2012(1) JLJ 126
(SUPREME COURT)
Aftab Alam and Ranjana P. Desai, , JJ.
Hardeep Singh v. State of M.P.
Criminal Appeals No.2250 and 2251 of 2011 : against judgment and order of Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur;
Decided on 5.12.2011.
Hardeep Singh, in-person;
Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija for respondent.
Headnote:(1) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.197 -- appellant was arrested and put handcuffs for alleged offences under section 420 read with section 34, IPC and under sections 3 and 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Recognized Examinations Act, 1937 -- he faced trial for several years -- ultimately, he was acquitted -- then, he filed complaint against Government Officers named as accused -- State Government refused to give sanction for prosecution -- in the absence of sanction complaint cannot proceed.
Held : It is now concluded by an order of this Court that the complaint filed by the appellant cannot proceed in the absence of sanction by the Government for prosecution of the accused named in the complaint. The State Government has declined to grant sanction and the High Court has rightly found that the order of the State Government does not suffer from any infirmity and does not warrant any interference by the Court. The prayer of the appellant, therefore, to send the accused behind bars cannot be entertained.
[Paras 6 & 16
(2) Constitution of India -- Art.21 -- appellant has to face trial for several years -- he was acquitted -- trial caused great harm to his dignity and reputation -- fundamental right to speedy trial was violated -- appellant entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation. [Paras 10 & 17
¼1½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 197 && vihykFkhZ dks Hkk-na-la- dh /kkjk 420 lgifBr /kkjk 34 ds v/khu rFkk e/; izns‘k ekU;rkizkIr ijh{kk,¡ vf/kfu;e] 1937 dh /kkjk 3 rFkk 4 ds v/khu fxjQ~rkj fd;k x;k rFkk gFkdM+h yxkbZ && mlus dbZ o"kZ fopkj.k dk lkeuk fd;k && varr% mls nks"keqDr fd;k x;k && rc mlus ljdkjh vf/kdkfj;ksa ds fo#) vfHk;qDr ds :i esa uke ls ifjokn Qkby fd;k && jkT; ljdkj us vfHk;kstu ds fy, eatwjh nsus ls badkj fd;k && eatwjh ds vHkko esa ifjokn ij dk;Zokgh ugha gks ldrhA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % bl U;k;ky; ds vkns‘k ls vc ;g fu.khZr gks pqdk gS fd ifjokn esa ukfer vfHk;qDr ds vfHk;kstu ds fy, ljdkj }kjk eatwjh ds vHkko esa vihykFkhZ }kjk Qkby ifjokn ij dk;Zokgh ugha gks ldrhA jkT; ljdkj us eatwjh nsus ls badkj fd;k rFkk mPp U;k;ky; us Bhd&gh ik;k gS fd jkT; ljdkj dk vkns‘k fdlh nkScSY;rk ls xzLr ugha gS rFkk U;k;ky; }kjk fdlh gLr{ksi dh vko‘;drk ugha gSA vr% vfHk;qDr dks tsy Hkstus dh izkFkZuk xzg.k ugha dh tk ldrhA
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 21 && vihykFkhZ dks fopkj.k dk dbZ o"kZ lkeuk djuk iM+k & mls nks"keqDr fd;k x;k && fopkj.k ls mldh xfjek rFkk [;kfr dh cgqr vigkfu gqbZ && ‘kh?kz fopkj.k ds ewy vf/kdkj dk vfrdze.k gqvk && vihykFkhZ izfrdj ds :i esa 2]00]000@& dk gdnkj gSA ¼iSjk 10 ,oa 17
Alam, J. -- 1. Leave granted. These two appeals are filed against the orders passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in two separate cases though arising from the same set of facts.
2. The appellant, Hardeep Singh was engaged in running a coaching centre, called “Deepika Classes” where students were given tuition to prepare them for entrance tests for different professional courses. On 8.6.1992, it was reported to the Collector, Jabalpur, Raghav Chandra that the appellant had asked some of his students to pay him Rs.50,000/- for giving them the question papers for the pre-medical test in three subjects. The Collector decided to set up a trap for catching the appellant. The complainant before the Collector had with him only Rs.10,000/- at that time. The Collector, therefore, called the City Magistrate and instructed him to take out Rs.10,000/- from the Collectorate Nazarat. The currency notes taken out from the Nazarat were marked and the decoy was sent to pay to the appellant Rs.20,000/-, including the money taken out from the Nazarat. Then a raid was conducted at the house of the appellant in which Rs.20,000/- with the marked currency notes of Rs.10,000/- were recovered.
3. The appellant was arrested and a criminal case (Criminal Case No.314 of 2004) was instituted against him under section 420 read with section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 and under section 3/4 of the Madhya Pradesh Recognised Examinations Act, 1937. He was brought to the police station in handcuffs and his photographs in handcuffs appeared in the local newspapers. The police submitted charge-sheet in the case on the basis of which the appellant was put up on trial. The trial went on, as is not uncommon in this country, for several years at the end of which he was acquitted on 26.8.2004.
4. Even while facing the trial, the appellant filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Jabalpur (which was registered as Criminal Case No.66 of 2000) alleging that the Collector Raghav Chandra and other Government functionaries, named as accused in the complaint had committed offences punishable under sections 395, 468, 469 read with section 34 of the Penal Code. The appellant’s complaint was also based on the raid conducted by the Collector along with the police officials at his house on 8.6.1992. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint for want of sanction under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Against the order dismissing the complaint, the appellant moved the Sessions Court in revision. The revision was allowed and as directed by the Sessions Court the appellant’s complaint came to be registered.
5. The accused in the complaint filed by the appellant then moved the High Court in a quashing application (Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.1676 of 2000) and the High Court by order dated 17.9.2002 {Raghav Chandra v. Tarvinder Kaur [2003 Cri.LJ 2208(MP)]}, allowed the application holding that the complaint was not maintainable against the public servants in the absence of sanction under section 197 CrPC. The appellant challenged the order of the High Court before this Court in SLP(C) No.179 of 2003, but it was dismissed in limine.
6. The appellant, then, moved the State Government for grant of sanction under section 197 CrPC for prosecution of Raghav Chandra and the other Government Officers named as accused in his complaint. The State Government, however, refused to give sanction and rejected his application by order dated 12.12.2006.
7. The appellant challenged the Government order in Hardeep Singh v. Rakesh Sahni [Writ Petition No.4777 of 2007, order dated 31.8.2007 (MP)], before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Court by order dated 31.8.2007. The appellant,then, filed a review petition (MCC No.2324 of 2007) but that too was dismissed by order dated 10.5.2007. The appellant, then, preferred an intra-Court appeal (WA No.1682 of 2007) which after due consideration by a
