Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 922 of 2018 Revisionist :- Devi Prasad Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Zia Naz Zaidi,Brijesh Sahai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri Brijesh Sahai and Ms Zia Naz Zaidi, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
The instant revision has been filed against impugned order dated 7.3.2018 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut in Criminal Case No.4009708 of 2014 (State Versus Devi Prasad) under Sections 354, 354(A), 506(1) and 509 I.P.C., Police Station Mahila Thana, District Meerut.
The brief facts of the case are that the revisionist was posted as Deputy Inspector General of Police, P.T.S., Meerut and opposite party no.2, Sub Inspector of Police, lodged F.I.R. against him on 31.5.2014 regarding the incident which continued from 2008 to 2014 with the allegation that revisionist had outraged her modesty and had also made lewd remarks and asked for sexual favours from her. Thereafter the matter was thoroughly investigated and charge-sheet was submitted against the revisionist under Sections 354, 354(A), 506(1) and 509 I.P.C. on which concerned court took cognizance of the offence on 26.7.2014. The revisionist thereafter got himself bailed out and charge against him under aforesaid sections was framed on 11.4.2016. The statement of opposite party no.2 was recorded as PW 1 and one Dhirendra Kumar Singh as PW 3. When the evidence of PW 2 continued, an application was moved on behalf of the revisionist that proceedings against him are not maintainable in view of the fact that mandatory sanction as envisaged under Section 197 Cr.P.C. has not been obtained and, therefore, very initiation/cognizance of the offence without previous sanction stands vitiated. Learned Magistrate after hearing counsel for both sides passed impugned order recording that Section 197 Cr.P.C. was amended by Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 which came into force from 3.2.2013 and in order to clear the doubts it was declared that if any public servant is charged for offences under Section 166-A, 166-B, 354, 354-B, 354-C, 354-D, 370, 375, 376, 376-A, 376C, 376-D and 509 I.P.C. then no legal sanction is required for prosecution of the public servant.
In view of aforesaid amendment, it is recorded that the as the incident has taken place on 23.4.2014. There is no necessity of procuring any sanction for prosecution of the revisionist for the offence, he was charge-sheeted. He further noted that revisionist was D.I.G., P.T.C., Meerut and being a public servant in view of amended provisions as noted above, there is necessity to obtain any sanction.
In my opinion, view taken by the learned Magistrate is absolutely correct and within four corners of provisions of law. It does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.
The revision has no force and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.3.2018 MN/-