9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvedi, AOR Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, Adv. Mrs. Prerna Priyadarshini, Adv. Ms. Prerna Priyadarshini, Adv. Mr. Syed Faraz Alam, Adv. Mr. Atharva Gaur, Adv. Mr. Aayushman Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. D. Girish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anmol Kheta, Adv. Mr. Sohail Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Sohail Seth, Adv. Mr. Sahir Seth, Adv. Mr. Nakul Chengappa, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Jay Nirupam, Adv. Mr. D Girish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Pranav Giri, Adv. Mr. Ekansh Sisodia, Adv. Mr. Karl P. Rustomkhan, Adv. Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR For the Respondent : Mr. Vikas Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Ashwin Kumar Nair, Adv. Ms. Ankita Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Gopalakrishna, Adv. Ms. Sneha Abraham, Adv. Ms. Aayushi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ranveer Singh, Adv. Mr. Wazid Hasan, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Gk, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandeep Patil, Adv. Mr. Kush Chaturvedi, AOR Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, Adv. Ms. Prerna Priyadarshini, Adv. Mr. Syed Faraz Alam, Adv. Mr. Atharva Gaur, Adv. Mr. Aayushman Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Anmol Kheta, Adv. Mr. Sohail Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Sahir Seth, Adv. Mr. Nakul Chengappa, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Jay Nirupam, Adv. Mr. D Girish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Pranav Giri, Adv. Mr. Ekansh Sisodia, Adv. Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... necessarily beyond the ambit or scope of consideration by a Magistrate while directing an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.? III. As a natural corollary of the aforesaid, could it be said that once a Magistrate has applied his mind under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., the requirement of a prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act is meaningless, redundant and no longer necessary? Could it be said that a police officer, despite a direction under Section 156(3) by a Magistrate, would remain inhibited from conducting any enquiry, inquiry, or investigation without prior approval as required by Section 17A? If yes, how does the standard of application of mind by the appropriate authority differ from that of the Magistrate? IV. In case of a private complaint, whether Section 19 of the PC Act, more particularly parts (i) and (ii) of the First Proviso therein contemplates that sanction would be required only after the Magistrate first completes the stage of examining the complainant and / or causing a magisterial inquiry wherever necessary in terms of Section(s) 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. respectively? In other words, whether the three conditions envisaged under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 190(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he must not only have applied his mind to the contents of the petition, but he must have done so for the purpose of proceeding in a particular way as indicated in the subsequent provisions of this Chapter,-proceeding under s. 200, and thereafter sending it for enquiry and report under s. 202. When the magistrate applies his mind not for the purpose of proceeding under the subsequent sections of this Chapter, but for taking action of some other kind, e.g., ordering investigation under s. 156(3), or issuing a search warrant for the purpose of the investigation, he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of the offence. My conclusion, therefore, is that the learned magistrate is wrong in thinking that the Chief Presidency Magistrate was bound to take cognizance of the case as soon as the petition of complaint was filed." (Emphasis supplied) VI. Whether it could be said that the First Proviso to Section 19 of the PC Act is detached from the substantive part contained in sub-section (1) of the said provision? VII. Whether the requirements introduced by Section 17A and the amended Section 19 of the PC Act could be said to be retros ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the aforementioned FIR and consequential proceedings by placing reliance on a decision of this Court in "Anil Kumar vs. M.K. Aiyappa (2013) 10 SCC 705", wherein it was held that "once it was noticed that there was no previous sanction, the Magistrate cannot order investigation against the public servant while invoking powers under section 156 (3) of CrPC". 6. The High Court by its order dated 11.10.2013 allowed the 482 CrPC petition and quashed the FIR as well as the subsequent proceedings in absence of sanction by relying upon the decision of this Court in Aiyappa (supra). 7. The order dated 11.10.2013 attained finality. However, on 12.12.2013, the first respondent filed another complaint making almost identical allegations by adding that the accused have ceased to hold office therefore sanction to prosecute them under section 19 of the PC Act is not required. 8. On 26.08.2016, the trial court dismissed the second complaint, inter alia, on the ground that there was no sanction. 9. Aggrieved by dismissal of the second complaint, the first respondent filed a 482 petition before the High Court, which came to be allowed by the impugned order dated 05.01.2021. 10. While allowin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Aiyappa's case has been doubted and referred to a larger bench of this court in "Manju Surana vs. Sunil Arora & Ors. (2018) 5 SCC 557", the decision of the larger bench is yet to come. 16. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents, it was submitted, inter alia, that Aiyappa's decision is in the teeth of a three-Judge bench decision of this Court in "R.R. Chari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1951 SC 207; 1951 SCC Online SC 22" as also the settled position that while exercising power under section 156 (3) of CrPC, the concerned Magistrate does not take cognizance of the offences, therefore no sanction is required at that stage. 17. Insofar as bar on investigation placed by section 17 A is concerned, the submission on behalf of respondents is two-fold. First, it does not proscribe a court from directing investigation in exercise of its powers under the CrPC; and second, it would not apply to Court directed investigation. 18. With regard to the maintainability of the second complaint, the respondents have relied on a number of decisions to contend that where the first complaint is rejected on technical grounds without touching upon the merits, a second complaint would be maintain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
