2006 (7) TMI 646 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the charge-sheet dated 17-2-2003.
2. Rejection of the objection/representation by the III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow on 15-2-2005.
3. Requirement of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Allegations of criminal conspiracy and abduction.
5. Delay in lodging the FIR.
6. Application of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
7. Authenticity and implications of the letter declining sanction for prosecution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of the Charge-Sheet:
The petitions sought to quash the charge-sheet dated 17-2-2003 and the order dated 15-2-2005. The petitioners argued that there was no evidence to make out a prima facie case against them and that the prosecution was barred due to the lack of sanction under Section 197 of the Code.

2. Rejection of Objection/Representation:
The III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, rejected the petitioners' objection/representation on 15-2-2005. The court held that the prosecution of the petitioners under Sections 211 and 193 IPC was barred by Section 195 of the Code and directed the petitioners to appear/surrender according to law.

3. Requirement of Sanction under Section 197 of the Code:
The court examined whether the act complained of was committed by the petitioners in the discharge of their official duty. It was concluded that the petitioners were acting in their official capacity, and hence, sanction under Section 197 was necessary. The Central Government had declined the sanction, making the prosecution invalid.

4. Allegations of Criminal Conspiracy and Abduction:
The court found no evidence of criminal conspiracy or abduction against the petitioners. The allegations did not satisfy the ingredients required under Section 120B IPC, and there was no material to show that the petitioners conspired with others to commit an unlawful act.

5. Delay in Lodging the FIR:
The FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay of about 10 months, which created suspicion about the truthfulness of the complainant's version. The unexplained delay was noted as a significant factor affecting the credibility of the allegations.

6. Application of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The court emphasized that the inherent powers under Section 482 should be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the court and to secure the ends of justice. The petitions were found to be maintainable as they did not seek to review or recall the earlier order but challenged the subsequent order of the Magistrate.

7. Authenticity and Implications of the Letter Declining Sanction for Prosecution:
The letter from the Central Government declining sanction for prosecution was authenticated and not challenged by the complainant. The court held that the bar created by Section 197 was absolute and complete, and without sanction, the court could not take cognizance of the offence.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the charge-sheet dated 17-2-2003 and the order dated 15-2-2005. The petitions were allowed, and the prosecution of the petitioners was deemed to be an abuse of the process of the court.