Sant Lal vs State of U.P. and others

G.S.N. Tripathi, J.—The petition is being finally disposed of.

The petitioner had filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate concerned against Ram Avtar and Sunder (private persons) and Sarvashri Arvlnd Kr. Jain, O. P. Yadav and Indra Mani Verrna (all public servants), alleging offences under Sections 323 504 506 447 and 448. I.P.C.

The main thrust of the objections before the learned trial court was that so far as the aforesaid public servants are concerned, they cannot be prosecuted without the permission of the State Government. This objection found favour with the learned Magistrate concerned. He, accordingly, dismissed the complaint. Similarly, in revision, being Criminal Revision No. 180 of 1997 filed by the complainant, the order of the learned trial court was upheld.

In this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has deleted the names of the aforesaid public servants, namely, Sarvashri Arvlnd Kr. Jain. O. P. Yadav and Indra Mani Verma, respondents No. 5, 6 and 7, from the array of the parties. Therefore, the complaint against other private persons, becomes ipso facto acceptable before the learned Magistrate concerned.

I have perused the complaint and also gone through the evidence recorded before the learned trial court. Prima facie there appears to be adequate evidence for taking cognizance against the private persons, (accused) namely, Sunder Ram, Ram Avtar and Jitendra Slngh.

The petition is partly allowed, accordingly. The order passed by the Courts below is upheld as regards the public servants (supra). The complaint as against these public servants, namely, Sarvashri Arvind Kr. Jain. O. P. Yadav and Indra Mani, is dismissed for want of requisite permission.

The complaint against Ram Avtar, Sunder Ram and Jitendra Singh shall proceed in accordance with law as there is adequate evidence to summon them.