Smt. Lily Pushplata Beck vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 July, 2023

Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Lily Pushplata Beck vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 July, 2023

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

          Neutral Citation
          2023:CGHC:18371-DB

                                           1

                                                                              NAFR
                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                   WPCR No. 272 of 2022

       Smt. Lily Pushplata Beck W/o Late I. Beck, Aged About 48 Years
         Presently Posted As Sub Registrar, Saraipali, Office of District Registrar,
         Mahasamund, R/o Vijeta Complex New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur District
         Raipur Chhattisgarh.

                                                                     ---- Petitioner

                                        Versus

      1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Ministry Of Revenue/law And
         Legislative Affairs, Secretariat, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan,
         Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

      2. The Anti Corruption Bureau, Through Superintendent, Gaurav Path,
         Opposite Jai Jawan Petrol Pump. Raipur.

      3. Lakhan Singh Rajput, S/o Late Shyam Sunder Rajput, Aged About 44
         Years R/o Potiya Road, Diprapara,durg, Tehsil And District Durg
         Chhattisgarh.

                                                                  ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate
For Respondents/State : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Additional Advocate
General

Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
21.07.2023

1. Heard Mr. Raza Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Chandresh

Shrivastava, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the

State/respondents.

Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:18371-DB

2

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following

prayers:

“a. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ
do issue directing call for the relevant records relating to
the petitioner’s case for its kind perusal.

b. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do
issue quashing sanction order dated 25.03.2019 which
forms part of charge sheet (Annexure P-1) being contrary to
the mandatory provisions manner prescribed for grant of
sanction i.e. in case of difference of opinion between the
parent department and Law Department and consequent
thereto quash the entire charge sheet (Annexure P-1) for
this reason alone and/or quash the charge sheet (Annexure
P-1) for the reason that the entire charge sheet does not
make out any case for trial of the petitioner in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

c. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do
issue awarding suitable compensation to the petitoiner for
her false and malicious prosecution causing pain and
agony for due discharge of duty as a Sub-Registrar in the
interest of justice.

d. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in
the facts and circumstances of case.

e. Cost of the petition may also be awarded.”

3. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to impugn and challenge action of

respondent in filing charge sheet dated 30.04.2019 against petitioner herein in

Special Case No.1/2019 arising out of Crime No. 4/18 registered by respondent

No.2 under Sections 13 (1) (b) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988 (for short, the Act of 1988) and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, and

in particular grant of sanction to prosecute the petitioner dated 25.3.2019 by

respondent authority concerned acting in the premises through Ministry of Law

and Legislative Affairs, thereby acting contrary to recommendation of the

petitioner’s parent department i.e. Commercial Tax Department, Raipur vide

letter dated 6.10.2018 not recommending sanction for prosecution of petitioner

as the same is in contravention of the Circulars of the State Government,

particularly Circular dated 26.5.2003 making it obligatory to follow the provisions

for grant of sanction mentioned in the circular in case of difference of opinion and
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:18371-DB

3

since as per law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court that sanction being sacrosanct

act and it is law of land that when a thing is required to be done in a particular

manner, it should be done in that manner only, which has not been adhered to by

respondents thereby infringing petitioner’s fundamental and constitutional rights.

In present case, such grant of sanction has taken place without following

procedure established by law and the same has also resulted into filing of charge

sheet which is also impugned herein and continuance of trial by the Court of

Special Judge, Raipur is an abuse of process of court and abuse of process of

law and in violation of petitioner’s fundamental, constitutional and other rights

including certain other rights under the Act of 1988, and the matters incidental

thereto.

4. Mr. Raza Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the question involved

in the present case is of right of petitioner to seek quashment of entire charge

sheet presented before the Special Judge (ACB), Durg in Special Case

No.1/2019 in a matter in which petitioner has acted within bounds as the Sub-

Registrar, Durg, without following procedure established by law and since entire

process suffers from illegality and in particular grant of sanction is contrary to

binding guidelines / law, the power of this Hon’ble Court to set things in order to

protect petitioner’s being citizen of India constitutional and other rights including

right to seek protection in respect of action done in good faith.

5. The petitioner is posted as Sub-Registrar in the office of District Registrar,

Saraipali. At relevant point of time i.e. in the year 2018, the petitioner was posted

as Sub-Registrar in the office of District Registrar, Durg and discharging her

duties in said capacity as per provisions of Sections 7 & 8 of the Indian

Registration Act, 1908. While discharging duties as Sub-Registrar, Durg, one

sale deed executed by and between Sanjay Bafna & Devendra Sonwani, seller

and purchaser respectively, was presented for registration in respect of property

situated in village Sikola, District Durg. The petitioner has gone through said

instrument and in discharge of her duty, registered the same as per provisions
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:18371-DB

4

contained in the Registration Act, 1908 and the rules made thereunder. Part-XI

of the Registration Act, 1908 deals with duties and powers of registering officer

and other provisions of law deal with ground on which denial of registration may

take place. However, in present case no such ground has been made out on

which the petitioner may refuse registration acting in her said capacity as Sub-

Registrar, therefore, the petitioner has proceeded further and in all good faith

registered the instrument after following the procedure established by law. In

other words, the petitioner says and submits that on prima facie satisfaction in

respect of requirement of law i.e. regarding valuation and payment of stamp duty

etc. the petitioner has registered said instrument dated 2.8.2016. which forms

part of the charge sheet. From perusal of charge sheet (Annexure P-1) it would

be clear that FIR has been registered at the instance of respondent No.3 who has

no role to play or comes within the purview of third person or person not having

any grievance/ authority, however, such complaint has been entertained for the

reasons best known to the authorities or most likely for the reason that

respondent No.3 has criminal antecedents and also involved in land grabbing

activities regarding which from time to time various actions have been taken by

the police authorities and certain publication of news items have also been made.

After dealing with aforesaid aspect of matter i.e. making complaint and filing of

charge sheet, the petitioner at the outset draws attention of this Hon’ble Court to

the sanction order for prosecution of the petitioner dated 25.3.2019 granted in

exercise of powers under Section 19 of the Act of 1988 and Section 197 of CrPC

which forms part of charge sheet (Annexure P-1). Perusal of the sanction order

dated 25.3.2019 would make it clear that Department of Law and Legislative

Affairs granted sanction after investigation of FIR registered under Crime

No.4/2018 with respondent No.2 for alleged violation of certain provisions of law.

Since petitioner’s first grievance in respect of such grant of sanction without

following procedure established under the law, the petitioner shall demonstrate

infra reasons for quashment of said sanction order dated 25.3.2019 as on

quashment of such sanction order, the act of filing of charge sheet will not be
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:18371-DB

5

sustainable in law and for this reason the entire charge sheet may be quashed.

6. Mr. Ali submits that grant of sanction is a sacrosanct act, therefore, the

authorities are duty bound to strictly adhere to norms fixed in this regard. During

relevant point of time, the procedure to be followed before grant of sanction has

been published in the Extraordinary Chhattisgarh Gazette in its edition dated

30.5.2003, perusal of which would make it clear that the State Government

acting in the premises through General Administration Department has issued an

order dated 26.5.2003 prescribing procedure for grant of sanction not only under

the provisions of Section 197 of CrPC but also under Section 19 of the Act of

1988. On the same date, in continuation, an order has also been issued detailing

gazette notification. In present case, the provisions of law which are applicable

have been dealt in Circular dated 26.5.2003 in Column ‘C’ which relates to

officers of the State like the petitioner herein. It is obligatory on the part of Law

Department to obtain opinion of the parent department of the officers/employees

against whom sanction is sought for and if parent department of employee

refuses sanction or is not in favour of grant of sanction for prosecution and the

Law Department of the State is in favour of such grant, then the procedure

prescribed is to refer the matter to the ‘Council of Ministers for Political Matters

and only on approval of Council of Ministers, such sanction can be granted or the

same has validity in terms of law. Since in the present case, the parent

department of the petitioner opined against grant of sanction to prosecute and the

Law Department granted sanction, the petitioner wish to state that the provisions

in this regard have not been violated which amounts to infringement of

petitioner’s fundamental, constitutional and other rights, particularly right under

Article 21 of the Constitution of India which provides that no person shall be

deprived of his life and personal life except according to the procedure

established by law. In this case, vide Circular dated 26.5.2003 procedure is

prescribed for prosecution which has effect of deprivation of life and personal

liberty, therefore, respondent authorities are bound to follow the same and not
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:18371-DB

6

following the same or acting contrary to the law vitiate the entire proceedings not

only of filing charge sheet but also subsequent trial under Special Case

No.1/2019 pending before the Special Court, Durg. Sanction has only been

granted by the Law Department of the State vide order dated 25.3.2019 which

contains no averments regarding following of procedure quoted above and

detailed in Gazette and order dated 26.5.2003 (Annexure P-4), as there is no

mention of obtaining any opinion from the parent department of the petitioner.

The reason behind not mentioning about correspondences with the petitioner’s

parent department of the Law Department is difference of opinion, which will be

clear from perusal of documents of the parent department of the petitioner in

which in categorical terms, the parent department of the petitioner vide letter

dated 6.10.2018 opined against grant of sanction. Mr. Ali refers to the para 3 of

the letter dated 06.10.2018 (Annexure P/5) which reads as under:

“2/ श्रीमती लि ी पुष्प ता बैंक बैंक] उप पंजीयक जिज ा बैंक दर्ग द्वारा मूल्यांकन में की गईु द्वा बैंकरा बैंक मूल्या बैंकंकन में की गई में की गई की गई र्ग द्वारा मूल्यांकन में की गईई

त्रु का बैंक परिरमा बैंकजन में की गई स् ा बैंकम्प क ेक् र द्वा बैंकरा बैंक कया बैंक र्ग द्वारा मूल्यांकन में की गईया बैंक । यह एक विधिक प्रावधान भी यह एक विधिक प्रावधान भी एक )धि+क प्रा बैंक)+ा बैंकन में की गई भी

ह एक विधिक प्रावधान भी. । यह एक विधिक प्रावधान भी जब )ह एक विधिक प्रावधान भी अपन में की गईी पदीय ह एक विधिक प्रावधान भीजि. 0यत 0े का बैंकय करता बैंक ह एक विधिक प्रावधान भी. तो उसे पंजीयन अधिनियम उ0े पंजीयन में की गई अधि+ न में की गईयम

1908 की गई +ा बैंकरा बैंक 84(3) ए)ं +ा बैंकरा बैंक 86 में की गई उ0े 0ंरक्षण प्रप्त है प्रप्त है ह एक विधिक प्रावधान भी.] उ0की गई पदीय ह एक विधिक प्रावधान भीजि. 0यत

0े 0द्भा बैंक)न में की गईा बैंकपू)क की गई र्ग द्वारा मूल्यांकन में की गईई का बैंकय)ा बैंकह एक विधिक प्रावधान भीी के लि ये 0ंरक्षण प्रप्त है प्रा बैंकप्त है ह एक विधिक प्रावधान भी. । यह एक विधिक प्रावधान भी उक्त धाराओं व +ा बैंकरा बैंकओ ं )

का बैंकन में की गईून में की गईी प्रा बैंक)+ा बैंकन में की गई के आ ो उसे पंजीयन अधिनियमक में की गई उन्ह एक विधिक प्रावधान भीें की गई अभिभयो उसे पंजीयन अधिनियमजन में की गई की गई अन में की गईुमधित देन में की गईा बैंक उधि;त प्रतीत न में की गईह एक विधिक प्रावधान भीीं

ह एक विधिक प्रावधान भीो उसे पंजीयन अधिनियमता बैंक ह एक विधिक प्रावधान भी. ।”

7. Mr. Ali next submits that if the sanction order dated 25.3.2019 and letter / order

dated 6.10.2018 is kept juxtapose, it would be clear that parent department of the

petitioner has clearly opined against grant of sanction saying that all the acts,

deeds and things having been done in official capacity by the petitioner and

petitioner has the protection of proceedings done in good faith, therefore, it is not

desirable to grant sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. The sanction order

dated 25.3.2019 does not contain any averment of seeking opinion from parent

department of the State and their refusal. Thus, it appears that the Law

Department of the State for the reasons best known to them have granted
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:18371-DB

7

sanction which otherwise ought not to have been granted in the facts and

circumstances of case, particularly obligatory provisions contained gazette

circular dated 26.5.2003 and clarification as quoted above. Even if the Law

Department of the State is of the opinion of granting sanction and since they have

already obtained opinion of parent department of petitioner i.e. Commercial Tax

Department of the State, it was obligatory on the part of them to refer the matter

to the Council of Ministers for political matters. It is submitted that no such

procedure has been followed by the State authorities or such grant of sanction is

not as per procedure prescribed and the law is well settled that when a thing is

required to be done in a particular, it should be done in that manner only or not at

all. It appears that the department of the State has suppressed most material fact

i.e. of refusal of parent department of petitioner to grant sanction on seeking

opinion by the Law Department from the parent department of the petitioner i.e.

Commercial Tax Department. All these facts are sufficient for quashment of

sanction order dated 25.3.2019. Thus, in sum and substance, contention of the

petitioner is that for this reason alone the order granting sanction is liable to be

quashed which will have effect quashment of charge sheet and trial under Special

Case No.1/2019 pending before the Special Judge, Durg. There are other

illegalities on the part of the respondent authorities which is clear from perusal of

the entire record of court below including charge sheet. A bare perusal of charge

sheet will make it clear that the entire investigation has been made by one Shri

Lambodar Patel, who was holding the post of Inspector of respondent No.2-ACB.

He draws attention of this Court to Section 17 of the Act of 1988. Section 17 (c)

of the Act of 1988 provides that only a Deputy Superintendent of Police or Police

officer of equivalent rank can make investigation and by no stretch of imagination

it can be said that Inspector is equivalent to Deputy Superintendent of Police.

This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon’ble Court in the matter

of Umesh Kumar Choubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2000

CriLJ 1760 holding after dealing with various judgments of superior courts of law

that power to investigate the offence punishable under the Act of 1988 lies with
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:18371-DB

8

only Deputy Superintendent of Police and no investigation can be made by any

officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police unless special order is

passed in this regard by the State. As stated above and depicted from order

refusing sanction of the parent department dated 6.10.2018 of exercising

jurisdiction/ powers in good faith, the petitioner refers to the applicable provisions

i.e. Section 86 of the Registration Act, 1908 which exonerates the petitioner from

any act bonafidely done. When the parent department of petitioner itself found

bonafides on the part of the petitioner in respect of act done, the prosecution of

the petitioner is bad in law. Section 84 of the Registration Act, the registering

officers are deemed public servants, therefore only sanction has been sought

from the State Government by the prosecution agency.

8. Mr. Ali also submits that firstly, the complaint made by respondent No. 3 is of the

nature that market value of property in question was allegedly more than Rs.97

Lakhs and since the petitioner has treated value of property, as mentioned in sale

deed, as Rs.97 Lakhs, therefore, only charged stamp duty of Rs.6,78,500/- and

as per alleged guidelines for the year 2016-17, as per complainant, market value

of the property was more than that, therefore, it has caused loss to the State

exchequer. In this regard, the petitioner draws attention of this Hon’ble Court to

various provisions of law i.e. Registration Act, 1908: Indian Stamp Act, as

applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh. Chapter-IV of the Indian Stamp Act deals

with ‘instruments not duly stamped”. Section 47A deals with instruments

undervalued how to be dealt with and the petitioner craves leave of this Hon’ble

Court to refer to and rely upon the same will be placed at the time of hearing.

From perusal of above, it would be clear that if Registering Officer i.e. petitioner

herein, while registering an instruments finds that market value of the property

which is subject matter of instrument has been set forth less than minimum value,

determined in accordance with rules under the Indian Stamp Act, 1889, he shall

before registering such document refer the same to the Collector for

determination of market value of such property and proper duty payable thereon,
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:18371-DB

9

Thus, absolute discretion is given to the registering officer to assess prima facie

market value of any property of which instrument is presented for registration and

unless there are compelling circumstances it was not obligatory for any

registration officer to visit the sites for ascertainment of boundaries of property in

question or for ascertaining value of property particularly when sale deed does

not contain any averment about sale of house.

9. Mr. Ali would draw attention of this Hon’ble Court to sale deed forming part of

charge sheet (Annexure P-1) in which a declaration letter/affidavit of the seller is

also enclosed and the seller on affidavit stated that the land is situated half

kilometer away from the main road and in the middle of agriculture field and there

is no construction on the land, neither there exists any source of irrigation nor any

tree and the land is barren agriculture land. Thus the petitioner has believed

version of seller and purchaser both and on prima facie satisfaction derived on

the basis of entire instrument including affidavit that market value of property is

rightly quoted or there is nothing in the instrument to doubt veracity of market

value of the property and there is nothing to deny reliance on the affidavit

declaration, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has acted with

criminality, which may make her liable for punishment under any provision of law

much less under the Act of 1988. Hence, petitioner has done nothing wrong in

relying on the affidavit and other documents enclosed for prima facie satisfaction

of the value of the property qua the guidelines. He further draws attention of this

Hon’ble Court that tendency of implicating revenue officers etc. are on rise,

therefore, a Circular dated 21.1.1994 has been issued by the then General

Administration Department of the State of MP in which in categorical terms it has

been said that person exercising jurisdiction of revenue officer etc. may during

course of discharge of official duty, pass right as well as wrong orders and in such

case, offence should not be registered. In the present case also, in respect of act

of the petitioner in allegedly registering instrument for lesser value, then also

procedure is prescribed for recovery of balance amount of stamp duty and the
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:18371-DB

10

Collector of Stamps has been conferred with jurisdiction to deal with the

undervalued instrument prior to and after registration. To some extent, the issue

involved in the present case has been dealt in the matter of State of MP vs.

Rajeev Jain reported in 2001 (4) MPHT 58 including the power under the

Judicial Officers Protection Act which also deals with definition of a Judge which

includes any person empowered to give in any legal proceedings a definitive

judgment or judgment if not appealed, would be definitive or if confirmed by some

other authority would be definitive and it has been found that authority dealing

with instruments comes within the purview of said definition. Further, in the matter

of Chakrapani Mishra vs. Sri Krishna reported in 2002 (3) MPHT 304, the

Hon’ble High Court of MP, Gwalior Bench, Gwalior, at paragraph 10, has dealt

with protection available to the Registering Officers under Section 86 of the

Registration Act. The other aspect involved in present case in respect of criminal

action commenced against Sub-Registrar while performing his duty as Sub-

Registrar.

10. In M.Cr.c. No.1072/2018 Surendra Kori vs. State of MP the Hon’ble High Court

while considering almost similar issue has quashed the FIR registered against

the petitioner therein who was performing his duty as Sub Registrar. In the

present case, the respondent No.2-complainant was keeping grudge against

petitioner, therefore, lodged. false complaint against her knowing full well that he

himself is involved in various land grabbing cases and various criminal cases are

registered against him, which is clear from perusal of documents already

enclosed and also paper cutting filed herewith and regarding this aspect of the

matter the petitioner has made complaints/representations at various points of

time to respondent authorities. However, the same have not been looked into or

not taken into consideration and perusal of the same will reveal to this Hon’ble

Court that the complainant is the person who has obstructed in discharge of

official duty on 21.2.2018 and also prior to that and sought protection, but the

most reasonable prayer on the part of the petitioner has not been taken into
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:18371-DB

11

consideration.

11. Mr. Ali also draws attention of this Hon’ble Court to the Circulars issued by the

Inspector General (Registration) Madhya Pradesh in respect of act of registration

of instrument by Sub-Registrar and registration of criminal case on such

registration of instruments and in said circular it has been categorically stated

that no offence should be registered unless and until act of the Sub-register is

malafide and contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act.

……..ऐ0ी स्थिस्?धित में की गई य द पक्षका बैंकर द्वा बैंकरा बैंक 0ी+े पुलि 0 ?ा बैंकन में की गईे में की गई प्रा बैंक? मकी गई दज करा बैंकन में की गईे पर रा बैंकजस्)

न्या बैंकया बैंक य के पीठा बैंक0ीन में की गई अधि+का बैंकरी के )रुद्ध प्रकरण प्रप्त है पंजीबद्ध कये र्ग द्वारा मूल्यांकन में की गईये अतए) न में की गईदDभिEत कया बैंक

जा बैंकता बैंक ह एक विधिक प्रावधान भी. क ऐ0ी प्रा बैंक? मकी गई के आ+ा बैंकर पर रा बैंकजस्) न्या बैंकधियक अधि+का बैंकरिरयों के )रूद्ध तब तक

अपरा बैंक+ प्रकरण प्रप्त है पंजीबद्ध न में की गईा बैंक कया बैंक जा बैंकये जब तक क रा बैंकज्य Eा बैंक0न में की गई का बैंक स्पष्ट आदेE न में की गईा बैंक ह एक विधिक प्रावधान भीो उसे पंजीयन अधिनियम । यह एक विधिक प्रावधान भी

12. The petitioner also finds support from the authority of Hon’ble High Court of MP in

Criminal Case No.5387/207 (Naresh Kumar Sharma vs. State of MP) also

dealing with act of registration of instrument and holding in favour of such person.

The petitioner has acted in the manner authorized by law and by any stretch of

imagination it cannot be said that any act of petitioner comes within the purview

of Sections 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the 27 28 Act of 1988 read with Section 120B

of the IPC. In this view of the matter also, apart from aspect of illegality in

sanction, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed.

13. In this case, separate returns have been filed by the respondent No. 1-State of

Chhattisgarh and and respondent No. 2-Anti Corruption Bureau.

14. Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents

No. 1 and 2, relying on the return filed, submits that when the petitioner was

posted as Sub Registrar in the office of District Registrar, Durg, District Durg

(CG) and while discharging her duty at Durg one sale deed executed by and

between Sanjay Bafna and Devendra Sonwani, which was presented for

registration in respect of the property situated in village Sikola, District Durg (CG)

and after going through the said instrument and in discharge of her duty
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:18371-DB

12

registered the same as per the provisions contained in the Registration Act, 1908

and the rules made thereunder. It has been contended by the petitioner that, it

would be clear that the FIR has been registered at the instance of respondent No.

3 who has no role to play or comes within the purview of third person or person

not having any grievance, however, such complaint has been entertained for the

reasons best known to the authorities or most likely for the reason that

respondent No. 3 has criminal antecedents and also involved in land grabbing

activities. In the present case the charge sheet has already been filed against the

petitioner before the Trial Court, subsequently the charges against the present

petitioner in aforementioned sections might be framed by the learned Trial Court

after going through the entire charge sheet and submission made on behalf of the

petitioner. Therefore, in such a situation, the petitioner can file a criminal revision

before this Hon’ble Court, but instead of filing criminal revision the petitioner has

filed the instant petition which is not maintainable under the eyes of law, because,

the petitioner is having an efficacious and alternative remedy to file the said

criminal revision before the Hon’ble Court. The petitioner has been charge-

sheeted for commission of offence punishable under sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2)

of the Act of 1988 and section 120B of the IPC in connection with the Crime No.

04/2018 dated 04.04.2018 registered at Police Station EOW/ACB, Ralpur (CG)

against the petitioner and co-accused persons.The complaint made by the

complainant / respondent No. 3 has been inquired by the Deputy Superintendent

of Police, ACB, Raipur (CG), whereby, the allegations levelled against the

petitioner have been found to be proved and it is found that the petitioner

misused her official capacity and conspired with other co-accused persons with

intention to get illegal gratification / benefit, thereby causing financial loss to the

State Government, therefore, prima-facie the offence punishable under sections

13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988 and section 120B of the Indian Penal Code

is made out against the petitioner. After completing a thorough and detailed

investigation the charge sheet has been filed before the Trial Court against the

petitioner and other co-accused persons on 30.04.2019 alongwith the relevant
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:18371-DB

13

material evidences and records. Since the petitioner is a government employee,

therefore, the prosecution sanction has been obtained from the competent

authority vide order dated 25.03.2019. The order dated 25.03.2019 passed by

the Law and Legislative Affair Department, Government of Chhattisgarh is a well

reasoned and detailed order as it has been passed after following every

procedure prescribed for grant of prosecution sanction. From perusal of the order

dated 25.03.2019, it is clear that the authority has passed the prosecution

sanction after perusing every documents placed before him for the prosecution

sanction and after applying the mind the prosecution sanction has been granted.

The provisions contained under section 19(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988 as well as the provision under Article 166 Part II and III of the Constitution

of India has been take care, which is a well reasoned and speaking order and is

well within the jurisdiction. The Government of Chhattisgarh, General

Administration Department has issued circular No. F 1-2/2003/1/6 dated

26.05.2003, which suggests that, when there is conflict between the opinion of

the departments about the prosecution sanction and the Law Department, the

matter is required to refer to the Coordination Committee with the permission of

Cabinet of the State. In the present case, as the Department of the petitioner was

of the view that there should not be prosecution or any prosecution against the

petitioner, therefore, when the matter was referred to the Law Department and

the Law Department was of the view that there are material available for

prosecution sanction against the petitioner, the matter was referred to the

Coordination Committee in the light of the circular dated 26.05.2003. In this

regard, he refers to letter dated 19.02.2019. The said communication dated

19.02.2019 is an internal correspondence and further the copy provided by the

Law Department, therefore, the proper care and action has been taken and every

provisions of law has been followed while passing the sanction of the prosecution

against the petitioner and there is no scope for interference in the impugned

order. The administrative department of the petitioner has not given sanction to

prosecution the petitioner under sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Act, of 1988
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:18371-DB

14

and section 120B of the IPC, therefore, the file was sent to the Coordination

Committee on 30.10.2018, wherein, the then Chief Secretary asked for inquiry in

the matter and after inquiry the file/matter was again submitted to the

Coordination Committee on 01.02.2019 alongwith the detailed evidences and

submitted the same before the Hon’ble Chief Minister for prosecution sanction,

where, the Hon’ble Chief Minister accorded its consent on 23.03.2019. The

General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh has issued

circular No. F 1-2/2003/1/6 Raipur dated 26.05.2003 provides for obtaining

approval in coordination when the administrative department of the delinquent is

not agreeable to grant prosecution sanction but the Law Department is in consent

to grant prosecution sanction against delinquent, accordingly, the Law

Department had taken sanction / approval from the Hon’ble Chief Minister in

coordination for grant of prosecution sanction against the petitioner. So far as the

ground taken by the petitioner that the entire act done by the petitioner was in

discharge of the official duty, is totally incorrect, because, willfully she has not

reported the matter about the deficiency of stamp duty and even if the matter is

referred under section 47A of the Stamp Act, then also criminality which has

been done by the petitioner attracts the commission of the crime and there is no

ground to quash the final report. On the basis of prima facie material evidences

available against the petitioner, which clearly establish the involvement of the

petitioner in commission of alleged offence, the prosecution sanction under

section 19(1) of Act of 1988 vide order dated 25.03.2019 issued by the Additional

Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Law, which is just, proper

and legal and the same does not warrant any kind interference of this Hon’ble

Court. Under the revisional jurisdiction, a very limited scope of interference is

available and since the impugned order passed by the competent authority

following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the same is strictly as

per law. The scope of interference of the Hon’ble High Court under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 is limited and if the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:18371-DB

15

offence, the Hon’ble Court should be reluctant to interfere for quashing the FIR at

the stage of Investigation. It is further held that, the Legal Position is well settled

that, if an offence is disclosed, the Court will not normally interfere with an

investigation into the case and will permit investigation into the offence alleged to

be completed and if the FIR, prima facie, discloses the commission of an offence,

the Court does not normally stop the investigation, for, to do so would be to

trench upon the lawful power of the Police to investigate into cognizable offence.

15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and

documents appended thereto.

16. Fact of the matter is that charge sheet has already been filed against the

petitioner before the Trial Court on 30.04.2019. The petitioner has the remedy to

file criminal revision before this Court, however, the petitioner has chosen to file

this writ petition. The petitioner, alongwith other co-accused have been charge-

sheeted for commission of offence punishable under sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2)

of the Act of 1988 and section 120B of the IPC in connection with the Crime No.

04/2018 dated 04.04.2018 registered at Police Station EOW/ACB, Ralpur (CG).

The allegation against the petitioner is also serious in nature as she has caused

loss to the public exchequer. The complaint made by the complainant /

respondent No. 3 has been inquired by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,

ACB, Raipur (CG), whereby, the allegations levelled against the petitioner have

been found to be proved and it is found that the petitioner misused her official

capacity and conspired with other co-accused persons with intention to get illegal

gratification / benefit, thereby causing financial loss to the State Government,

therefore, prima-facie the offence punishable under sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2)

of the Act of 1988 and section 120B of the Indian Penal Code is made out against

the petitioner. Further, prosecution sanction has been obtained from the

competent authority vide order dated 25.03.2019. The order dated 25.03.2019

passed by the Law and Legislative Affair Department, Government of

Chhattisgarh which is also a well reasoned and detailed order as it has been
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:18371-DB

16

passed after following the due procedure prescribed for grant of prosecution

sanction. In the order dated 25.03.2019, it has been observed that the petitioner

caused loss to the public exchequer to the extent of Rs. 6,78,500/-.

17. After due investigation, once the charge sheet has been filed before the

competent Court, challenging the sanction order would be a futility. The circular

dated 26.05.2003 is in regard to a situation when there is a conflict between the

opinion of the Departments about the prosecution sanction and the Law

Department, the matter is required to be referred to the Coordination Committee

which in the instant case has also been done.

18. In view of the return filed by the respondents, it is amply clear that prima facie a

case is made out against the petitioner and after following the due process of law,

prosecution sanction has also been granted which deserves no interference.

Even otherwise, the petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy of filing a

revision which she has failed to avail.

19. In view of the above, this petition is dismissed.

                             Sd/-                                           Sd/-
                      (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)                          (Ramesh Sinha)
                          Judge                                         Chief Justice




amita