Forged actions do not fall under the official duties of a public servant, thereby not requiring sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.

ORDER

The above revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 5.10.2010 in C.C.No.2917 of 2007 of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Aluva by which the learned Magistrate discharged the accused under Section 245 (1) of Cr.P.C., against whom the revision petitioner herein preferred a private complaint alleging the offences punishable under Sections 217, 465, 466, 468 and

471 of IPC.

2. The petitioner herein is a student of the Model Engineering College, Trikkakkara and according to him, he had been severely ragged by certain students of the very same college and with the above allegation he had preferred a First Information Statement in the Trikkakkara Police Station based upon which Crime No. 319/2004 was registered for offences punishable under Section 2(b)(1)(ii) of Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998. As there was no effective investigation, according to the petitioner, he had preferred W.P.(C).No.25971/2005 before this Court seeking an order for fair investigation. According to the petitioner in the above writ petition, the Station House officer of Trikkakkara Police Station appeared and filed an affidavit stating that the crime which was registered at the instance of the petitioner as Crime No.319/2004, was referred as mistaken of facts, after investigation. It is also specifically stated in the affidavit that the petitioner being the complainant was furnished a refer notice on 1.12.2004 through the accused in the above calender case. Eventually, this Court disposed of the above writ petition with the direction to the Magistrate to serve the copy of the notice of refer report to the petitioner herein and accordingly, on fresh notice to the petitioner he appeared before the learned Magistrate on 12.1.2006.

3. According to the petitioner on appearing before the court below and on perusal of the records he understood that the refer notice allegedly issued or served to the petitioner is a forged one. According to the petitioner the endorsement as “copy received” and the signature of the complainant are forged by the accused. According to the petitioner the above forgery was committed by the accused to help the accused in Crime No.319/2004.

4. Incorporating the above facts and allegation the petitioner herein approached the court below by filing a private complaint against the respondents/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 217,465,466, 468 and 471 of IPC and the said complaint was taken on file on 13.8.2007. After the appearance of the accused the complainant was cross examined as PW1 and Ext.P1 to P5 were marked. The charge was framed for the above offences. It is thereafter the accused preferred an application under Section 245 Cr.PC for a discharge on the ground of want of sanction under Section 197 (2) of Cr.P.C. C.M.P.No.988/2010 is the said petition. After hearing the above petition, the learned Magistrate issued the impugned order discharging the accused and it is the above order of discharge is impugned in this revision petition.

5. I have heard Sri.K.S.Madhusudhanan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri.

C.P.Udhayabhanu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. On the strength of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court inState of Uttar Pradesh v. Paras Nath Singh reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 372, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the offence of forgery never be a part of official duty and therefore, no sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C is required to proceed against the respondents/accused in a private complaint. Whereas Sri.C.P.Udhayabhanu, the learned counsel for the respondents after inviting my attention to paragraph 9 of the complaint filed by the revision petitioner, it is submitted that even according to the revision petitioner the accused has committed the offences while doing his official duty. The learned counsel further submitted that fr