Absence of required sanction under Section 196 of Cr.P.C. prohibits court from taking cognizance of specific IPC offences.

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner – accused No.1 in Crl.P.No.2509/2024 and petitioner – accused No.2 in Crl.P.No.4844/2024 are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.42/2024, pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Gudlupet, for the offences under Section 295A , 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the IPC .

2. Heard Sri Dineshkumar K. Rao, learned counsel for petitioner in Crl.P.No.2509/2024 and Sri Eshwara H.H., learned counsel for petitioner in Crl.P.No.4844/2024, Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri Ganapathi, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in both the petitions.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

A complaint comes to be registered on 27.12.2022 alleging that petitioners have destroyed the pillars of a temple or a crack is seen in the pillar of a temple. The complainant is said to be a passerby or resident of the village, registers a complaint against petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2, who is the JCB driver. The complaint then becomes a crime in Crime No.234 of 2022 for offence punishable under Sections 504 , 506, 295A r/w. 34 of the IPC . The police after investigation file their charge sheet. On the charge sheet, cognizance is taken by the learned Magistrate for the aforesaid offences. Taking of cognizance against the petitioners, has driven them to this Court in the subject petitions.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that for an offence under Section 295A of the IPC , sanction as necessary under Section 196 of the Cr.P.C. is imperative, without which, the concerned Court could not have taken cognizance of the offence and therefore, would submit that the proceedings be quashed. Apart from that, the order of taking cognizance does not even bear even a semblance of application of mind.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - complainant would vehemently refute the submissions, in contending that it is a matter of trial and the plea of sanction can be projected before the concerned Court at any point in time. Therefore, seeks dismissal of the petitions.

6. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would admit the fact that sanction is obtained under Section 196 of the Cr.P.C., but not from the competent authority. Therefore, liberty should be reserved to obtain sanction from the hands of the competent authority to continue the proceedings.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are all a matter of record. The registration of the complaint triggers registration of the crime. I therefore deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. The complaint reads as follows:

The concerned Court takes cognizance of the offences by the following order dated 02.02.2024:

“Perused Charge sheet and material available on record. It discloses that there are reasonable grounds at this stage to proceed against accused for the offences punishable U/Sec. 295(А), 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC . The cognizance is taken against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec. 295(A), 504, 506 r/w 34 of . Hence Register as C.C. and issue Summons to Accused.

Returnable by 5/3/24

Sd/-

2/2/24

Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Gundlupet.”

(Emphasis added)

A perusal at the order of the concerned Court indicates blatant non-application of mind, as it does not bear even semblance of reasons for taking cognizance of the offences.

9. It is time and again indicated by this Court that the orders of the learned Magistrate or the concerned Court mu