The absence of government loss is not a valid ground to deny prosecution sanction under criminal procedure law.

JUDGMENT

The Writ Petition (Crl.) is filed seeking the following prayers:

“A. To call for the records leading up to the issuance of Exhibit P7 report pursuant to Exhibit P8 proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent;

B. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction, order to quash Exhibit P7 report and Exhibit P8 proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent and declare that no protection under Section 197 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is accorded to the 6th respondent as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shambhoo Nath Misra Vs State of U.P. (1997) 5 SCC 326 ;

C. To declare that no sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is required against the 6th respondent inorder to proceed with Exhibits P2 FIR and P3 final report;

D. To dispense with the translation of documents from vernacular language to English on the undertaking that the same shall be produced as and when directed by the Hon'ble Court;

E. To pass such other writ order or direction that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;” [SIC]

2. The petitioner filed a complaint which leads to Ext.P2 crime and consequently Ext.P3 final report in which the offence under Sections 465, 466 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 alleged.

3. A Special Village Officer is an accused in the above crime.

The prosecution case is that the petitioner was the absolute owner and in possession of 70 cents of land comprised in Survey No.328/1 of Alamcode Village, Thiruvananthapuram District. The 6^th respondent herein is also residing in the very same survey number in front of the property of the petitioner. In the year 2008, the 6^th respondent was working as the Special Village Officer at Alamcode Village Office, Thiruvananthapuram and her husband was the then Municipal Counsellor of Alamcode Village. In the year 1992, the petitioner sold 70 cents of land comprised in Survey No.328/1 of Alamcode Village, Thiruvananthapuram, which is adjacent to the boundary of the petitioner and also to one Lathika. It is submitted that the aforesaid Lathika and her husband have close connection with the 6^th respondent and are known to each other. While so, the said Lathika had constructed road in 4.797 cents of land out of the

70 cents purchased from the petitioner and sold the said property to six different persons. As such the aforesaid said Lathika had got no land in her name in Alamcode Village, Thiruvananthapuram District, is the submission.

4. It is submitted that in the year 2008, the petitioner herein had instituted a civil suit before the Munsiff Court, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram, as O.S. No.18 of 2008 against the 6^th respondent and her husband along with her relatives for their alleged illegal act of trespassing into his property and damaging the property boundary fencing so as to get an alternative pathway and the petitioner obtained an injunction order against them. It is also submitted that a criminal case was also instituted against them. While so, on 24.06.2008, the 6^th respondent, in order to wreak personal vengeance towards the petitioner against instituting civil and criminal cases, misused her official capacity after conspiring with the said Lathika and her husband and issued a possession certificate to the said Lathika, who had sold her land years back under the guise of producing it before the erstwhile State Bank of Travancore, is the submission.

5. It is submitted that the said request for possession certificate was received by the 6^th respondent on 24.06.2008, and she was well aware of the fact that the said Lathika does not own or possess any extent of land in Survey No.328/1 of Alamcode Village, Thiruvananthapuram District. Hence the final report