Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2453 of 2019 Petitioner :- Badam Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Nath Singh,Akhilesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2 (annexure no. 1 to the writ petition).
It transpires from the perusal of record that a F.I.R. was lodged by A.R.T.O. Sambhal, Bheemnagar against the owner of vehicle no. U.P. 38 E 4687. During the course of investigation the name of the petitioner came into light and it was found by the investigating officer that several vehicles were registered by using fake identity cards and forge invoices. After investigation the investigating officer was of the opinion that it was the petitioner, who was accountant in A.R.T.O. had forwarded necessary documents regarding registration of stolen vehicles. Thereafter, Superintendent of Police, Sambhal had sought sanction from the respondent no. 2 for prosecuting the petitioner in the present case which was allowed by the respondent no. 2 vide order dated 30.11.2018. It is the order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2 granting sanction to prosecution the petitioner that is under challenge in the present writ petition.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed by the respondent no. 2 without applying its mind. Further contention is that as the petitioner had not committed any offence nor was responsible for registration of stolen vehicles therefore, the order sanctioning prosecution is bad in the eyes of law.
This Court has perused the impugned sanction order and it has been found that the director who is sanctioning authority, has taken note of the fact that A.R.T.O., Sambhal had got F.I.R. registered in police station Bheemnagar regarding registration of stolen cars on the basis of fictitious identity cards and fictitious invoices. It has also been taken note of by the sanctioning authority that due investigation has been done in the case which elicited out the fact that the petitioner had forwarded the files for registration without making any legitimate, due or appropriate inquiry about the same and the entire papers were forwarded for registration virtually without any genuine checking. It was this finding which demonstrated the complicity of the petitioner in the crime and the entire fraudulent exercise obviously reflected a large scale collusion. After considering the whole matter in which charge sheet was submitted, the sanctioning authority found it to be a fit case in which the petitioner ought to be prosecuted. As the director was the prescribed sanctioning authority he thought it fit to grant sanction in the matter and acted accordingly granting this sanction.
Learned counsel could not make such submissions which could persuade us to hold that it was not a fit case where sanction ought to have been granted or in which it may be said that the sanction in question was uncalled for. The offences alleged are of serious nature and have grave implications. Crime of committing theft of vehicles is rampant and rife. To help in getting stolen cars' registration is in fact an attempt to legitimize the theft which puts a blanket on large scale crimes and provides occasion to the culprits to explain the defence plea of being the legitimate owners of those cars which were actually stolen. Registration of vehicle without taking due care and diligence in a manner as has been alleged, cannot be soft pedalled or countenanced with. Grant of sanction cannot be faulted with in such circumstances. After perusal of the sanction order this Court also does not find itself in a position to say that the same reflects complete non application of mind. The maximum that may be said is that the sanctioning order could have been even more elaborate or that it could have been couched in a better language. But that does not appear to be a sufficient ground to quash the same.
The writ petition lacks merit and stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.1.2019 Naresh