When a Magistrate rejects a police closure report and takes cognizance via a protest petition, the case must be treated as a private complaint warrant trial, requiring pre-charge evidence. Furthermore, acts performed in official capacity by a public servant require prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for prosecution.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J. (Oral):

Instant case is one of the rare cases wherein due to technicalities prescribed under Limitation Act 1963, principles of law vis-a-vis cause of justice seems to have been placed on the back seat. The petitioner has been summoned by the learned trial Court to face a trial for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, and he has been served, by the learned trial Court, with the charge-sheet.

2. The facts related to the present case are that petitioner was a Principal (now retired) in a college and the complainant-respondent No.2 was a teacher in the same institution. The petitioner had recorded some adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Report of the complainant-respondent No.2, and, therefore, the respondent No.2-complainant was aggrieved. The factual matrix of the present case shows that as a Principle of the College, the petitioner had signed certain documents which, according to complainant were, having false contents. The complainant-respondent No.2 claims that the creation of above mentioned documents amounted to forgery.

3. The above mentioned complaint was duly probed by the departmental authority in an inquiry and finding no substance in the complaint, preferred by the respondent No.2, such complaint was filed. In the similar fashion, the complaint had preferred a complaint before the police authorities, containing the same allegations, but the above mentioned complaint, too, did not find favour of the Investigating Agency. Thus by saying that there was no truth in the allegations, the Investigating Agency moved a cancellation report in the Court of learned Area Magistrate. However, the learned Area Magistrate, not being convinced with the grounds taken in the cancellation report, took cognizance against the petitioner and passed a summoning order calling upon the petitioner to stand trial for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.

4. The order dated 03.03.2021, whereby the cognizance has been taken and the petitioner has been summoned to face trial, makes it abundantly clear that the petitioner along with Vijay Singh HOD (Computer Science) and Smt. Jyoti Jangra, Extension Lecturer, have been summoned as accused, in the exercise of jurisdiction vested in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jind, by virtue of Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. The above mentioned summoning order was passed without calling upon the complainant to lead preliminary evidence.

5. Although, apparently the details of evidence responsible for forming the opinion recorded in the order dated 03.03.2021, and justifying the cognizance of offence, have not been mentioned, yet the revision petition preferred by the petitioner did not find favour in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind due to bar of limitation.

6. The Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, hereinafter being referred to as learned trial Court only, while taking cognizance observed that:

thus, prima facie, there are sufficient grounds to proceed against accused persons namely Ved Prakash Sheoran, Vijay Singh HOD (Computer Science) and Smt. Jyoti Jangra, Extension Lecturer, who abused their official position and by hatching criminal conspiracy with each other, committed cheating and thereby caused wrongful loss to the State Exchequer (Govt. of Haryana) and wrongful gain to themselves. The entire exercise was undertaken by preparing false bill by all three accused persons in pursuance of criminal conspiracy. By preparing fals