Criminal Misc. No. M-7935 of 2010 v. Narvair Singh

where, the carcasses, were being disposed of. It was further stated that, Dayala, fixed a tag, in the ear of the deceased buffalo, in the presence of Balbir Singh, contractor, and took photographs of the said deceased buffalo. Dayala (non-petitioner), called the petitioner, to his house, for conducing the post-mortem examination of the deceased buffalo of the complainant. Balbir Singh, contractor, told the petitioner, who was the veterinary surgeon, that the deceased buffalo was of the complainant. It was further stated that, Dayala (non-petitioner), in collusion with the petitioner, represented that, the buffalo, belonged to him, and, after getting post-mortem Criminal Misc. No. M-7935 of 2010 3 examination, obtained false claim of insurance.

3. After recording the preliminary evidence, the accused- petitioner, was summoned, for the offences, punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 120-B and 506 IPC.

4. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully.

5. The Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, the dead buffalo, was wearing the tag. He further submitted that, Dayala (non-petitioner), had purchased the buffalo, after taking loan, from the Kaithal Cooperative Bank Limited, Dhand. He further submitted that, the petitioner, being veterinary surgeon, only conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead buffalo, which died, on

12.12.07. He further submitted that, Dayala (non-petitioner), submitted an application, to the petitioner, as veterinary surgeon, in the Veterinary Hospital, Pharal, stating therein, that out of his five buffalos, which he had purchased, after taking loan, from Kaithal Cooperative Bank Limited, Dhand, one buffalo, bearing tag No. 34513, had expired, and, therefore, for the purpose of raising insurance claim, post-mortem of the said buffalo be conducted. He further submitted that, it was, on the basis of that application, that the post-mortem, was conducted, by the petitioner. He further submitted that, the petitioner, neither connived with Dayala (non-petitioner), nor forged any document. He further submitted that, even if, it is assumed, for the sake of arguments that, in the discharge of his duties, the petitioner, conducted the post-mortem examination of the Criminal Misc. No. M-7935 of 2010 4 dead buffalo, which was represented by Dayala, to be belonging, to him, as it was bearing the tag of a specific number, no complaint, could be filed, against the petitioner, without sanction, from the competent authority, under Section 197 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the complaint, the summoning order and the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, being the abuse of process of the Court, are liable to be quashed.

6. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that, the allegations, contained in the complaint, clearly showed, that the petitioner, connived with Dayala, and, conducted post-mortem of the dead buffalo, which belonged, to the complainant, with a view, to enable him (petitioner), to receive the insurance amount. He further submitted that, no sanction, was required, for prosecution of the petitioner, as the commission of offences, punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, do not fall within the purview of his duties.

7. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the petition, is liable to be accepted, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. It is settled principle of law that, at the time of deciding the petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court, is only required, to look into the allegations, contained in the complaint, and, the documents, attached therewith. If, from the allegations, contained in the complaint, no offence, is made out, then the complaint and further proceedings, can be quashed. In the instant Criminal Misc. No. M-7935 of 2010 5 case, an application, was moved by Dayala (non-petitioner), before the petitioner, who was veterinary surgeon, at the relevant time, that the dead buffalo, had been purchased by him, after obtaining the loan and bore the tag, and, that post-mortem be conducted. It was, on the basis thereof, that he conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead buffalo, which Dayala (non-petitioner), represented to be his own. Since the dead buffalo, was bearing a tag, the question of any connivance of the petitioner with Dayala, did not at all arise. The petitioner, only performed his duties of a veterinary surgeon by conducting the post-mortem examination of the dead buffalo. He did not prepare any false document, nor did cheat the complainant, nor connived with Dayala, in any manner, so as to enable him, to get compensation. If Dayala, allegedly misrepresented the facts, then he is liable, and, not the petitioner. The allegations, contained in the complaint, therefore, do not constitute the offences, punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 120-B and 506 IPC, against the petitioner.

8. The petitioner, conducted the post-mortem examination, in the discharge of his official duties, on the basis of application, moved by Dayala, to the effect, that the dead buffalo, was purchased by him, after obtaining the loan. Only after post-mortem examination, he was to inform the bank and claim the insurance. The petitioner, thus, acted in the discharge of his duties. No prosecution, could be launched, against the petitioner, without sanction, under Section 197 Cr.P.C. In Lal Chand Vs. Sukhwinder Singh Dhillon, Tehsildar, 2008(1), RCR (Criminal), 258, the accused, sanctioned Criminal Misc. No. M-7935 of 2010 6 mutation, in the discharge of his official duties. In these circumstances, it was held, that the accused, could not be prosecuted, under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC, without sanction, under Section 197 Cr.P.C. Similar, principle of law, was laid down, in State of H.P. Vs. M.P. Gupta, 2004(1), Crl. C.C., 575 (SC), and, Gian Parkash Vs. State of Haryana, 2008(3), RCR (Criminal), 31. No sanction, under Section 197 Cr.P.C., was obtained, before launching prosecution. The complaint and the subsequent proceedings, are, thus, liable to be quashed, on this ground.

9. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M- 7935 of 2010, is accepted. Complaint Case No. 181-1/2008, titled as 'Narvair Singh Vs. Dayala and another, dated 12.05.08, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 120-B and 506 read with Section 34 IPC (Annexure P6), the summoning order dated 19.01.09 (Annexure P7), passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kaithal, and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed, qua the petitioner.

10. Registry is directed, to comply with the order, by sending the copies thereof, to the Courts concerned immediately.

03.08.2010 Amodh (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE