Vijay Kumar vs Ramesh Kumar

V.M. Jain, J.—This is a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant-petitioner, seeking the quashment of the orders dated 10.5.1997

and 5.4.2001, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in the criminal complaint and revision petition respectively, filed by the petitioner.

The petitioner had filed a criminal complaint against the respondents. Respondents No. 1 to 5 were sought to be proceeded, with regard to the

occurrence, which had allegedly taken place on 22.5.1996. So far as respondent No.6 is concerned, he is sought to be proceeded on the ground that when the matter was brought into the notice of the Police, no action was taken by the Police in this regard. An FIR No.95, dated 23.5.1996

under Sections 323/324/452/506/34 IPC was registered against the petitioner side. It was alleged that various efforts made by the petitioner to get a case registered against respondents No. 1 to 5, proved futile.

After recording the preliminary evidence, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 10.5.1997, ordered the summoning of accused

respondents no. 1 to 5 for the offences under Sections 323/324/452/506/148/149 IPC. However, no order of summoning was passed in respect of respondent No.6. Aggrieved against this order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the complainant filed revision petition before the

Sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 5.4.2001, dismissed the revision petition, holding that no offence u/s

326 IPC was made out and as such the learned Magistrate had rightly summoned the accused-respondents for the offences under Sections

323/324/452/506/148/149 IPC. With regard to respondent No.6, it was found that respondent No.6 being a Police Officer, no proceedings could be initiated against him for want of sanction. Aggrieved against the orders passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has filed the present petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. in this Court.

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted before me that a case u/s 325 IPC is also made out against respondents No.1 to 5, but

the learned Magistrate had summoned these respondents only for the offence under Sections 323/324/452/506/148/149 IPC. However, I find no force in these submissions of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner. No such point was raised before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, at the time of arguments in the revision petition. The petitioner cannot be allowed to raise this point for the first time, in these proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

It has been submitted before me by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that no sanction was required to prosecute respondent No.6 and the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, had held that without obtaining sanction, respondent No.6 could not be prosecuted. However, I find no force in this submission as well of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner. Respondent No.6 was posted as SHO at that time. If no FIR was registered at the instance of the petitioner, in my opinion, no offence under Sections 217/218 IPC could be made out. In any case, if respondent No.6 is to be prosecuted in this regard sanction would be required to prosecute him. No sanction having been obtained, in my opinion, no fault could be found with the orders passed by the courts below.

In view of the above, finding no merit in this petition, the same is hereby dismissed.