# Sr. Kafeel @ Dr. Kafeel Ahmed Khan v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 938
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-26
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 8735 of 2021
- **Bench:** Gautam Chowdhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sr-kafeel-dr-kafeel-ahmed-khan-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47419
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power , Section 196 - prior sanction from
Central Government or State Government
before cognizance is taken of any offence
punishable
under
Chapter-VI
I.P.C.
,
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 153 A -
promoting
enemity
between
different
groups on grounds of religion, Section 153
B - imputations, assertions prejudicial to
national integration , Section 505 (2) -
statements creating or promoting enmity ,
hatred or ill - will between classes ,
Section109 - Punishment for abetment -
Prior
sanction
either
of
the
State
Government or of the Central Government
is necessary before taking cognizance of
the offences under Sections 153-A and
153-B
of
the
Indian
Penal
Code
-
Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the offences under Sections
153-A and 153-B of the Indian Penal Code
in absence of any sanction as envisaged
under
Section
196(1)(a)(1-A)(a)
CrPC.(Para - 9)

Criminal proceedings against applicant - Alleged
Inflammatory
Speech
against
CAA
-
Chargesheet and cognizance order passed
against applicant - requisite prior sanction of
prosecution
not
taken
by
the
Central
government or the State government or the
district magistrate under Section 196(A) CrPC.

HELD:-The entire criminal proceedings and
the cognizance order passed by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate quashed , on the ground
that prior requisite sanction of prosecution
not taken by the Central government or the
State government or the district magistrate
under
Section
196(A)
of
the
Criminal
Procedure Code (CrPC). Matter remanded
back to the court of chief judicial magistrate ,
with the direction that as per the provision of
Section 196 CrPC, Order of cognizance under
the sections 153A , 153B , 505(2) , 109 of IPC
may be passed against the applicant only
after obtaining prior sanction of prosecution
by the Central government or the State
government or the district magistrate.(Para -
16,17)
9 All Sr. Kafeel @ Dr. Kafeel Ahmed Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
939
Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

938 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the provision being not to allow a person
who deserves to be tried to go scot-free by
being not arraigned in the trial inspite of
possibility of his complicity which can be
gathered from the evidence during the course
of trial, the order passed under Section 319 of
the Code summoning the applicant does not
contain any material error so as to warrant
inference.

27. Counsel for the applicant at this
stage submits that he does not dispute the
aforementioned legal position with regard to
the exercise of powers under Section 319 of
the Code and states that the applicant would
submit to the jurisdiction of the court below
and seek bail.

28. It goes without saying that in case
any such application is moved, the court
below would be expected to dispose it of in
accordance with the settled principles of law.

29. Subject to the aforesaid observation,
the application stands dismissed.
----------
(2021)09ILR A938
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 8735 of 2021

Sr. Kafeel @ Dr. Kafeel Ahmed Khan
 ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Rajrshi Gupta, Sri Dileep Kumar (Senior
Adv.), Sri Manish Singh, Sri Nazrul Islam Jafri
(Senior Adv.), Sri Sambhavi Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power , Section 196 - prior sanction from
Central Government or State Government
before cognizance is taken of any offence
punishable
under
Chapter-VI
I.P.C.
,
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 153 A -
promoting
enemity
between
different
groups on grounds of religion, Section 153
B - imputations, assertions prejudicial to
national integration , Section 505 (2) -
statements creating or promoting enmity ,
hatred or ill - will between classes ,
Section109 - Punishment for abetment -
Prior
sanction
either
of
the
State
Government or of the Central Government
is necessary before taking cognizance of
the offences under Sections 153-A and
153-B
of
the
Indian
Penal
Code
-
Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the offences under Sections
153-A and 153-B of the Indian Penal Code
in absence of any sanction as envisaged
under
Section
196(1)(a)(1-A)(a)
CrPC.(Para - 9)

Criminal proceedings against applicant - Alleged
Inflammatory
Speech
against
CAA
-
Chargesheet and cognizance order passed
against applicant - requisite prior sanction of
prosecution
not
taken
by
the
Central
government or the State government or the
district magistrate under Section 196(A) CrPC.

HELD:-The entire criminal proceedings and
the cognizance order passed by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate quashed , on the ground
that prior requisite sanction of prosecution
not taken by the Central government or the
State government or the district magistrate
under
Section
196(A)
of
the
Criminal
Procedure Code (CrPC). Matter remanded
back to the court of chief judicial magistrate ,
with the direction that as per the provision of
Section 196 CrPC, Order of cognizance under
the sections 153A , 153B , 505(2) , 109 of IPC
may be passed against the applicant only
after obtaining prior sanction of prosecution
by the Central government or the State
government or the district magistrate.(Para -
16,17)
9 All Sr. Kafeel @ Dr. Kafeel Ahmed Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
939
Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Manoj Rai Vs St. of M.P., 1999 (1) SCC 728

2. Mohd. Waris @ Raza Vs St. , Jail Appeal No.
8326 of 2007

3. Swaraj Thackeray Vs St. of Jharkhand & ors. ,
2008 CRI. L. J. 3780 (Precedent followed)

4. Sarfaraz Sheikh Vs The St. of M. P.

5. Bakhshish Singh Brar Vs Gurmej Kumar &
anr., (1987) 4 SCC 663

6. CBI Vs B.A.Srinivasan , (2020) 2 Supreme
Court Cases 153

7. Dharmesh @ Nanu Nitinbhai Shah Vs St. of
Guj. , (2022) 45 ACC 519

8. Devinder Singh & ors. Vs St. of Punjab
Through CBI , (2016) 12 SCC 87

9. Swaraj Thackeray Vs St. of Jharkhand & ors. ,
2008 CRI. L. J. 3780

(Delivered by Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary, J.)

1& vkosnd dh vksj ls /kkjk 482 na0iz0la0 ds
vUrxZr ;g vkosnu i=] eq0v0la0&700 lu~ 2019]
vUrxZr /kkjk 153&,] 153&ch] 505 (2)] 109 Hkk0na0fo0]
Fkkuk flfoy ykbUl] ftyk vyhx<+ esa izsf"kr vkjksi i=
la0 055 lu 2020] fnukafdr 16&3&2020 ls mn~Hkwr okn
la0 3250 lu 2020] LVsV olsZl Mk0 dQhy] tks eq[;
U;kf;d eftLVzsV] vyhx<+ ds U;k;ky; esa yfEcr gS rFkk
blesa ikfjr izlaKku vkns'k fn0 28&7&2020 ds fo:)
nk;j fd;k x;k gSA

2& vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk Jh euh"k flag]
lkEHkoh 'kqDyk ,oa muds ofj"B vf/koDrk Jh fnyhi
dqekj rFkk foi{kh la0 1 dh vksj ls fo}ku vij
'kkldh; vf/koDrk Jh iratfy feJ ,oa fo+}ku vij
egkf/koDrk Jh euh"k xks;y dks lquk rFkk i=koyh dk
ifj'khyu fd;kA

3& okn ds rF; la{ksi esa bl izdkj gSa fd fn0
12&12&2019 dks ,l0 vkbZ0 eks0 nkfu'k] ih0,l0
flfoy ykbu] vyhx<+ }kjk Fkkuk flfoy ykbu] ftyk
vyhx<+ esa ,d izkFkfedh iathd`r djk;h x;h fd "
Jheku izHkkjh fujh{kd egksn;] Fkkuk flfoy ykbu]
vyhx<+ egksn;] vkt fnukad 12&12&19 dks eq>
,l0vkbZ0 nkfu'k e; gejkgh dka0 2290 vf[kys'k ds
lkFk ,0,e0;w0 ckc&,&l;~;n xsV ij 'kkfUr O;oLFkk
M~;wVh yxk;h x;h FkhA le; djhc 18-30 cts
ckc&,&l;~;n xsV ij ,0,e0;w0 ds djhc 600 Nk=ksa
}kjk ckgj ls vk;s Mk0 dQhy o ;ksxsUnz ;kno
izslhMsUV Lojkt bf.M;k }kjk lEcksf/kr fd;k x;kA
Mk0 dQhy }kjk vius lacks/ku esa fn;s Hkk"k.k esa lHkk
esa mifLFkr ,0,e0;w0 ds eqfLye Nk=ksa dks mudh
/kkfeZd Hkkoukvksa dks HkM+dkus nwljs leqnk; ds izfr
?k`.kk 'k=qrk o O;euL; Hkkoukvksa dks HkM+dkus dk
iz;kl fd;k x;k ftlls leqnk;ksa ds chp lkSgknZ cus
jgus ij izfrdwy izHkko iM+uk o yksd 'kkfUr esa fo/u
iM+us dh laHkkouk gSA Mk0 dQhy }kjk vius Hkk"k.kksa esa
dgk x;k fd eksVk HkkbZ fl[kkrk gS gesa fd fgUnw cusxk
;k eqlyeku cusxk exj bUlku ugha cusxkA D;ksa dRy
djus okys rw D;k tkus ftlds [kqn diM+s [kwu ds
NhVksa ls nkx yxs gksa oks dkfry [kqn diM+s [kwu ds
NhVksa ls nkx yxs gks oks dkfry ml nkx dks fNik
dSls ik,xkA ftl fnu ls vkj0,l0,l0 iSnk gqbZ gS
ml fnu ls mls lafo/kku ij fo'okl ugha gSA
lh0,0ch0 ls rqEgsa nks;e ntsZ dk ukxfjd cuk;k tk
jgk gS blds ckn ls ,u0vkj0lh0 ykxw djsaxs] rqEgsa
ijs'kku djsaxsA rqEgkjs vCck dk lfVZfQdsV Bhd ugha gS
dgdj rqEgsa nkSM+k;k tk;sxk] ;g gekjs otgwn dh
yM+kbZ gSA gesa yM+uk iM+sxkA blds ckn Mk0 dQhy us
vius Hkk"k.k esa dgk fd lh0,0ch0 ,slk gS fd iM+ksl esa
pksjh djus okys pksj dks ge vius ?kj esa ukSdjh ns jgs
gksA Mk0 dQhy ds bl Hkk"k.k ls lh0,0ch0 ds
vUrxZr vkus okys fgUnw] fl[k] bZlkbZ] Qkjlh ds fy,
,0,e0;w0 ds eqfLye Nk=ksa esa ?k`.kk Qsykus dk iz;kl
fd;k x;k] ftlls yksd 'kkfUr esa fo/u djus dh
laHkkouk gSA blds ckn Mk0 dQhy us vius Hkk"k.k esa
dgk fd vkj0vkj0,l0 ds Ldwyksa esa fl[kk;k tkrk gS
fd nkM+h okys VsjksfjLV gksrs gSaA lh0,0ch0 ls vkidks
fn[kk;k tk jgk gS fd ;g ns'k viuk ugha gS
,u0vkj0lh0 ds fy, rS;kj gks tkvks] ge iPphl
djksM+ gS u rqe gesa Mjk ldrs gks] ge rqEgsa crk;saxs
fd ns'k dSls pysxkA eq> mi fujh{kd }kjk Mk0
dQhy ds Hkk"k.kksa dh chfM;ks fjdksfMZx dh x;h
ftldh lh0Mh0- layXu gSA Mk0 dQhy dk ;g Hkk"k.k
,0,e0;w0 ds eqfLye Nk=ksa esa /k`.kk QSykus dk iz;kl
rFkk ,0,e0;w0 Nk=ksa dks mudh /kkfeZd Hkkoukvksa dks
HkM+dkus] nwljs leqnk; ds izfr ?k`.kk] 'k=qrk o O;euL;
Hkkoukvksa dks HkM+dkus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k] ftlls
leqnk;ksa ds chp lkSgknZ cus jgus dk izfrdwy izHkko
iM+uk o yksd 'kkfUr esa fo/u iM+us dh lEHkkouk gSA
940 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Mk0 dQhy ds fo:) vfHk;ksx iathd`r djus dh d`ik
djsaA"

4& mDr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dh foospuk
foospd }kjk dh x;h rFkk izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa
fy[kk, x, vkjksi lgh ikrs gq, foospd }kjk Mk0
dQhy ds fo:) eq[; U;kf;d eftLVzsV] vyhx<+ ds
U;k;ky; esa vkjksi i= la0 055 lu 2020] fnukafdr
16&3&2020 izsf"kr fd;k x;k] ftl ij U;k;ky; }kjk
laKku dk vkns'k ikfjr djrs gq, ntZ jftLVj djus
,oa ryc djus lacaf/kr vkns'k fn0 28&7&2020 ikfjr
fd;k x;k] ftlls {kqC/k gksdj vkosnd dh vksj ls
/kkjk 482 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr ;g vkosnu i= izLrqr
fd;k x;k gSA

5& vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k dk dFku
gS fd vkosnd ch0 vkj0 Mh0 esfMdy dkyst]
xksj[kiqj esa ysDpjj ds in ij dk;Zjr gSA fn0
10@11 vxLr] 2017 dks ch0 vkj0 Mh0 esfMdy
dkyst] xksj[kiqj esa vpkud fyfDoM vkDlhtu dh
lIykbZ ckf/kr gq;h] ftlds dkj.k cgqr ls cPpksa dh
e`R;q gks x;h] ml fnu vkosnd vodk'k ij Fkk] fdUrq
,d MkDVj gksus ds ukrs mlus vkDlhtu flysUMj dh
O;oLFkk vius [kpsZ ij izkbosV fd;k rFkk 3&4 lkS
cPpksa dh tku mlus cpkbZ] rFkk og izkbosV lIyk;lZ
,oa izkbosV gkfLiVy ds laidZ esa jgkA blds ckotwn
Hkh mls fn0 22&8&2017 dks fuyafcr dj fn;k x;k
rFkk fpfdRlk f'k{kk ,oa izf'k{k.k] m0 iz0] y[kum }kjk
Fkkuk dksrokyh gtjrxat] ftyk y[kum es mlds ,oa
vU; vf/kdkfj;ksa ds fo:) fn0 23&8&2017 dks
izkFkfedh ntZ djk nh x;hA vkosnd ds fo:)
vkDlhtu dh deh ds laca/k esa dksbZ fo'oluh; lk{;
ugha FkkA blds ckn vkosnd dks fn0 2&9&2017 dks
fxjQ~rkj dj fy;k x;k] vkosnd dks fn0 12&9&2017
dks vkjksi i= feyk] vkosnd dbZ ekg dkjkxkj esa
fu:) jgk rFkk tekur ij eqDr gksus ds ckn vkosnd
foHkkxh; tkWp djus okys lacaf/kr vf/kdkjh ds ikl
yxk, x, vkjksiksa dh tkudkjh djus x;k] blds ckn
vkosnd us fuyacu vkns'k ds f[kykQ mPp U;k;ky;
vk;k rFkk ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; Hkh x;k ,oa bl
e/; dksfoM&19 dk nkSj Hkh vk x;k] ftlds ckn
mlus rFkkdfFkr eq0v0la0&700 lu~ 2019] vUrxZr
/kkjk 153&,] 153&ch] 505 (2)] 109 Hkk0na0fo0] Fkkuk
flfoy ykbUl] ftyk vyhx<+ esa izsf"kr vkjksi i= la0
055 lu 2020] fnukafdr 16&3&2020 ls mn~Hkwr okn
la0 3250 lu 2020] LVsV olsZl Mk0 dQhy] tks eq[;
U;kf;d eftLVzsV] vyhx<+ ds U;k;ky; esa yfEcr gS
rFkk blesa ikfjr izlaKku vkns'k fn0 28&7&2020 ds
fo:)

/kkjk 482 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr ;g vkosnu
i= izLrqr fd;kA

6& vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k us rdZ
izLrqr fd;k fd /kkjk 196 na0iz0la0 dh mi/kkjk 1
(v) esa ;g izkfo/kkfur gS fd U;k;ky; dks /kkjk
153&v] 153&c] 505 (2) Hkk0na0fo0 esa vijk/k dk
laKku ysus ds iwoZ fdlh O;fDr ds vfHk;kstu gsrq dsUnz
ljdkj vFkok jkT; ljdkj vFkok ftykf/kdkjh }kjk
iwoZ vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr ysuk vko';d gS] ,slh iwoZ
Lohd`fr@vuqefr ds fcuk lEcfU/kr vijk/kksa ds
vfHk;kstu gsrq laKku ugha fy;k tk ldrk gS rFkk
fcuk iwoZ vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr ds laKku ysus ds vkns'k
dks voS/kkfud ekuk tk,xkA mudk dFku gS fd /kkjk
196 ,oa 196&, na0iz0la0 ds izkfo/kku vkKkid
(ck/;dkjh) izd`fr ds gSaA iz'uxr okn esa eq[;
U;kf;d eftLVzsV] vyhx<+ }kjk ikfjr iz'uxr vkns'k
fn0 28&7&2020] ftlds }kjk vkjksi i= dks ntZ
jftLVj djrs gq, vijk/k /kkjk 153&v] 153&c] 505
(2) ,oa 109 Hkk0na0fo0 ds vUrxZr laKku fy;k x;k
,oa vkosnd dks rych vkns'k }kjk vkgwr fd;k x;k
rFkk ;g laKku ysus ,oa rych vkns'k ikfjr djus ds
iwoZ dsUnz ljdkj vFkok jkT; ljdkj vFkok
ftykf/kdkjh ls dksbZ Lohd`fr ugha yh x;hA bl laca/k
esa mudh vksj ls lacaf/kr U;k;ky; ds le{k
Application For Information (Chapter IX
Rule 1F) izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj mlesa iz'u iwNk
x;k Fkk fd D;k okn la0 3250 lu 2020 esa
vfHk;kstu }kjk vkjksi i= nkf[ky djus ls iwoZ dsUnz
ljdkj ;k jkT; ljdkj ;k ftykf/kdkjh] vyhx<+ ls
/kkjk 196 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr (Sanction) Lohd`fr
fy;k x;k gS] ftl ij tokc "NO" fn;k x;k gSA
vr% iwoZ vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr ds vHkko esa ,oa eq[;
U;kf;d eftLVzsV] vyhx<+ ds U;k;ky; esa yfEcr
mijksDr laiw.kZ dk;Zokgh ,oa laKku ds laca/k esa ikfjr
iz'uxr vkns'k vikLr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA

7& vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us vius rdZ
ds leFkZu esa eku~uh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk Manoj
Rai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1999
(1) SCC 728 esa izfrikfnr fof/k O;oLFkk ds izLrj 2
dh vksj U;k;ky; dk /;ku vkd`"V fd;k] tks fuEuor~
gS %&

"2. Since the learned counsel for
the State fairly states, on instructions, that
no sanction was given in accordance with
Section 196(1) of the Criminal Procedure
9 All Sr. Kafeel @ Dr. Kafeel Ahmed Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
941
Code to prosecute the appellants for the
offence under Section 295-A of the Indian
Penal Code, we allow this appeal and quash
the impugned proceedings. Let the written
instructions received by the learned counsel
for the respondent-State in this regard be
kept on record as desired by him."

8& bl lEcU/k esa vkosnd ds fo}ku
vf/koDrkx.k us mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn dh
};&U;k;ihB }kjk Mohd. Waris @ Raza Vs.
State, Jail Appeal No. 8326 of 2007
decided on 5.8.2019 ds izLrj 33] 34] 35] 36
,oa 37 dh vksj U;k;ky; dk /;ku vkd`"V fd;k] tks
fd fuEuor~ gS %&

"33. A perusal of Section 196
Cr.P.C., clearly shows that it contemplates
a prior sanction from Central Government
or State Government before cognizance is
taken of any offence punishable under
Chapter-VI I.P.C. Therefore, apparently, it
cannot be disputed and learned AGA has
also fairly stated that as per requirement of
Section 196 Cr.P.C., no cognizance could
have been taken of offence punishable
under Chapter-VI I.P.C. unless prior
sanction from Central Government or State
Government is obtained.

34.
In
the
present
case,
opportunity was granted to State to show
whether such sanction was given of
categorical statement has been made by
learned AGA before this Court that no such
sanction was granted or even sought to be
obtained, hence, question of grant by
competent
authority
does
not
arise.
Prosecution, in fact, strangely proceeded in
complete and absolute ignorance of Section
196 Cr.P.C. It is really surprising that
prosecution was not aware that for offences
punishable under Chapter-VI I.P.C., there
was/is a statutory requirement of obtaining
prior sanction of Competent Authority. No
efforts at all were made to obtain the same.

35. Proceeding further now we
have to examine, "whether requirement of
''prior sanction' under Section 196 Cr.P.C.
is mandatory" and secondly, if no such
issue was raised before Magistrate, who
committed
proceedings
to
Court
of
Sessions/Trial Court, whether it will stop
appellants from raising issue for the first
time in appeal, or flaw is so inherent it
goes to the root of the matter and even in
appeal, it can be taken for the first time and
may vitiates Trial and conviction.

36. The object of Section 196
Cr.P.C. is to ensure prosecution after due
consideration by appropriate authority so
that frivolous or needless prosecution is
avoided. To appreciate the nature of
"sanction" contemplated under Section 196
Cr.P.C., in correct perspective, it would be
appropriate to bear in mind and examine
Section 465 Cr.P.C., which reads as under
:-

465. Finding or sentence when
reversible by reason of error, omission
irregularity.

(1) Subject to the provisions
hereinbefore
contained,
no
finding,
sentence or order passed by a Court of
competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or
altered by a Court of appeal, confirmation
or revision on account of any error,
omission or irregularity in the complaint,
summons, warrant, proclamation, order,
judgment or other proceedings before or
during trial or in any inquiry or other
proceedings under this Code, or any error,
or irregularity in any sanction for the
prosecution, unless in the opinion of that
942 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court, a failure of justice has in fact been
occasioned thereby.

(2) In determining whether any
error, omission or irregularity in any
proceeding under this Code, or any error,
or irregularity in any sanction for the
prosecution has occasioned a failure of
justice, the Court shall have regard to the
fact whether the objection could and should
have been raised at an earlier stage in the
proceedings.

(Emphasis added)

37. A perusal of Section 465
Cr.P.C. shows that it runs into two parts;
(i) "on any error, omission or irregularity",
and three words have been used and it is
said that the same will not justify setting
aside of conviction in appeal or revision
etc. but with reference to "sanction" only
two words "error or irregularity" have
been used and the word "omission" has not
been mentioned. Meaning thereby, in the
cases where sanction is required, if there is
an error or irregularity in the "sanction",
then conviction or finding will not be
reversed
in
appeal
or
revision.
It
contemplates that sanction is there but
there is some error or irregularity in
granting sanction. If there is a complete
"omission" of sanction, then in our view,
Section 465 Cr.P.C. will not come into
picture and will not help prosecution. It,
therefore, leads to irrestible inference that
if there is no sanction, whatsoever, by
competent authority as contemplated in
Section 196 Cr.P.C., it will be a serious
flaw and an illegality and would vitiate the
entire proceedings."

9& vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us U;k;ky;
dk /;ku Swaraj Thackeray Vs. State of
Jharkhand & Ors. 2008 CRI. L. J. 3780
& Sarfaraz Sheikh Vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh esa izfrikfnr fof/k O;oLFkkvksa
dh vksj Hkh U;k;ky; dk /;ku vkd`"V fd;k] ftuesa
voj U;k;ky; ds le{k yfEcr okn dh dk;Zokgh dks
vikLr djrs gq,] izdj.k dks 196 na0iz0la0 dk
vuqikyu djus ds i'pkr xq.k&nks"k ij izlaKku dk
vkns'k ikfjr djus gsrq izfrizsf"kr djus dk funsZ'k fn;k
x;k gSA

Swaraj Thackeray Vs. State of
Jharkhand & Ors. 2008 CRI. L. J. 3780
esa ikfjr fu.kZ; dk izLrj 14 ,oa 15 fuEuor gS %&

"14. Regarding the points raised
by the petitioner that prior sanction under
Section 196, CrPC was must before taking
cognizance of the offences under Sections
153-A and 153-B IPC, I find that from a
bare perusal of Section 196(1)(a) and (1A)(a), quoted herein above, it is absolutely
clear that there is complete bar for taking
cognizance of the offences punishable
under Sections 153-A, 153-B, Section 295A or Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section
505,IPC.

In
the
present
case,
the
cognizance of the offences under Sections
153-A, 153-B and 504 IPC has been taken
by the learned Magistrate. There is no
dispute of the fact that prior to taking
cognizance of the offences alleged under
Sections 153-A and 153-B IPC, no sanction
either of the Central Government or of the
State Government was taken. The decision
cited by the counsel for the petitioner in the
case of Shailbhadra Shah and Ors. v.
Swami Krishna Bharati and Anr. of
Gujarat High Court reported in 1981 Cr LJ
113, supports his contention that prior
sanction either of the State Government or
of the Central Government is necessary
before taking cognizance of the offences
under Sections 153-A and 153-B of the
Indian Penal Code. Therefore, in such a
situation, it is held that the learned
9 All Sr. Kafeel @ Dr. Kafeel Ahmed Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
943
Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the offences under Sections
153-A and 153-B of the Indian Penal Code
against the petitioner in absence of any
sanction as envisaged under Section
196(1)(a)(1-A)(a)
CrPC.
Consequently,
that part of the impugned order taking
cognizance for the aforesaid two offences,
i.e., under Sections 153-A and 153-B, IPC
only by the learned Magistrate cannot be
sustained and, as such, is hereby quashed.

15.
So
far
as
for
taking
cognizance of the offence under Section
504 IPC, taken by the learned Magistrate,
there is no such legal bar for taking
cognizance of the aforesaid Section 504
IPC, and I find that the learned Magistrate
after full application of mind and on
consideration of the materials on record
has taken cognizance of the offences under
Section 504 IPC also and, therefore, the
same does not require any interference by
this Court."

Sarfaraz Sheikh Vs. The State
of Madhya Pradesh esa ikfjr fu.kZ; dk vfUre
izLrj fuEuor gS %&

"The offence under sections 153A and 153-B IPC are of the nature of
promoting enmity between different groups
on the ground of religion, race, place of
birth,
residence,
language,
caste
or
community
or
any
other
ground
whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of
enmity etc; or any act which is imputation,
assertions
THE
HIGH
COURT
OF
MADHYA PRADESH MCRC. No.174/2017
(Sarfaraz Sheikh vs. The State of M.P.)
prejudicial to national-integration in place
of public worship the maintenance of
harmony
between
different
religious,
racial, language or regional groups or
castes or communities and as such are
offence against the public at large and
State. The inclusion of offence under
sections 147and 149 of IPC, in the chargesheet, in fact, are in conjunction with such
offence under section 153 A and 153 B IPC
are inseparable. Consequently, for want of
sanction for offence under sections 153 A
and 153 B of IPC as on the date of
cognizance on 05.03.2016, the prosecution
continued pursuant to the impugned order
cannot be sustained. It is accordingly
quashed. However, based on subsequent
sanction
on
16.08.2016,
the
respondent/State is always at liberty to take
recourse to law for filing supplementary
charge-sheet."

10& fo}ku vij egkf/koDrk Jh euh"k xks;y
,oa fo}ku vij 'kkldh; vf/koDrk Jh iratfy feJ
us vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k ds rdksZ dk [k.Mu
djrs gq, rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd vkosnd ,d ljdkjh
MkDVj gSa blfy, /kkjk 197 na0iz0la0 ds izkfo/kku Hkh
ykxw gksrs gSa] rFkk /kkjk 482 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr
vkosnu i= izLrqr djds vfHk;kstu vuqefr ds vk/kkj
ij lEiw.kZ dk;Zokgh ds fujLrhdj.k dh ;kpuk
iks"k.kh; ugha gSA vkosnd }kjk laKku ds Lrj ij ;k
vkjksi fojfpr gksus ds volj ij vfHk;kstu vuqefr
u gksus ds vk/kkj ij mUekspu ;kpuk dk iw.kZ vf/kdkj
gSA mudk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd /kkjk 196 ,oa 197
na0iz0la0 ds izkfo/kku dksVZ }kjk izlaKku ysus ds lUnHkZ
esa yxHkx leku gSa] ,sls esa fo/kkf;dk dh ea'kk ds
vuq:i izkfo/kku 197 Hkh ykxw gksaxs rFkk vkosnd ds
izdj.k esa /kkjk 196] 197 na0iz0la0 ds izkfo/kkuksa dks
la;qDr :i ls i<+us dh vko';drk gS rFkk laKku ysus
ds ckn vfHk;kstu vuqefr izkIr gksus ls lEiw.kZ
dk;Zokgh nwf"kr ugha gks tk,xh rFkk bl izdj.k esa fn0
27&5&2021 dks vuqefr ysus ds i'pkr mls voj
U;k;ky; esa fn0 3&8&2021 dks nkf[ky dj fn;k x;k
gSA mudk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd /kkjk 460 (C) esa
mfYyf[kr izkfo/kku fdlh vijk/k dk laKku vxj /kkjk
190 (1) es Dykt (A) ;k (B) ds rgr eftLVzsV
}kjk ys fy;k x;k gS rks og flQZ bjjsxqyj gksxh vkSj
izkslhfMax dks nwf"kr ugha djsxhA izLrqr izdj.k esa
iqfyl fjiksVZ esa /kkjk 190 (1) B esa eftLVzsV }kjk fn0
28&7&2020 dks izlaKku fy;k x;k gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa
lacaf/kr eftLVzsV }kjk ikfjr fd;k x;k laKku dk
vkns'k fcYdqy lgh gS rFkk mlesa gLr{ksi djus dh
dksbZ vko';drk ugha gSA mUgksaus vius rdZ ds leFkZu
944 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
esa eku~uh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk Bakhshish
Singh Brar Vs. Gurmej Kumar and
another (1987) 4 Supreme Court Cases
663 esa izfrikfnr fof/k O;oLFkk ds izLrj 4 dh vksj
U;k;ky; dk /;ku vkd`"V fd;k] tks fuEuor~ gS %&

"4. There are rival versions
involved in this case. The question was
whether without the sanction under section
197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the
proceedings could go on. It is quite
apparent that as a result of the alleged
search and raid, which was conducted by
the petitioner in discharge of his official
duties certain injuries, which are described
as grievous, injuries had been inflicted on
the complainant and one of the alleged
offenders had died. In this case, admittedly,
the petitioner is a Government servant.
Admittedly, there was no sanction under
section 197 of the Cr. P.C. had been taken.
The trial in this case is one of the offences
mentioned under section 196 of the Cr.
P.C. The contention of the petitioner was
that under section 196 of the Cr. P.C. the
cognizance of the offence could not be
taken nor the trial proceeded without the
sanction of the appropriate authorities. The
learned
Additional
Sessions
Judge,
Kapurthala after consideration of the facts
and circumstances of the case in view of
the observations of this Court in Pukhraj v.
State of Rajasthan and another, [1974] 1
S.C.R. S59 that unless cognizance is taken
and the facts and in the circumstances and
the nature of the allegations involved in
this case are gone into the question
whether the raiding party exceeded its
limits or power while acting in the official
duties cannot be determined. The learned
Judge
observed
after
gathering
the
materials and some evidence, it would be
possible
to
determine
whether
the
petitioner while acting in the discharge of
his duties as a police officer had exceeded
the limit of his official capacity in inflicting
grievous injuries on the accused and
causing death to the other accused."

esjs fopkj ls mDr fu.kZ; esa /kkjk 196 na0iz0la0
,oa /kkjk 197 na0iz0la0 dks ,d lkFk fopkfjr fd;k
x;k gS rFkk orZeku ekeys esa flQZ /kkjk 196 na0iz0la0
fopkfjr fd;k tk jgk gS] blfy, mDr fu.kZ; esas
mfYyf[kr rF;] orZeku izdj.k ls fHkUu gSaA

11& fo}ku vij egkf/koDrk us vius rdZ ds
leFkZu esa eku~uh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk CBI Vs.
B.A.Srinivasan (2020) 2 Supreme Court
Cases 153 esa izfrikfnr fof/k O;oLFkk dh vksj
U;k;ky; dk /;ku vkd`"V fd;kA fdUrq ;g fu.kZ;
/kkjk 197 na0iz0la0 ds laca/k esas ikfjr fd;k x;k gS]
tcfd orZeku ekeys esa flQZ /kkjk 196 na0iz0la0
fopkfjr fd;k tk jgk gS] blfy, mDr fu.kZ; esas
mfYyf[kr rF;] orZeku izdj.k esa ykxw ugha gksaxsA

12& fo}ku vij egkf/koDrk us vius rdZ ds
leFkZu
esa
eku~uh;
mPpre
U;k;ky;
}kjk
Dharmesh @ Nanu Nitinbhai Shah Vs.
State of Gujarat (2022) 45 ACC 519 esa
izfrikfnr fof/k O;oLFkk dh vksj U;k;ky; dk /;ku
vkd`"V fd;kA fdUrq mDr fu.kZ; ds rF; orZeku
izdj.k ds rF;ksa ls fHkUu gSaA

13& fo}ku vij egkf/koDrk us vius rdZ ds
leFkZu
esa
eku~uh;
mPpre
U;k;ky;
}kjk
Devinder Singh and others Vs. State of
Punjab Through CBI (2016) 12 SCC 87
esa izfrikfnr fof/k O;oLFkk ds izLrj 39.8 dh vksj
U;k;ky; dk /;ku vkd`"V fd;k] tks fuEuor~ gS %&

"39.8. Question of sanction may
arise at any stage of proceedings. On a
police or judicial inquiry or in course of
evidence during trial. Whether sanction is
necessary or not may have to be
determined from stage to stage and
material brought on record depending
upon facts of each case. Question of
sanction can be considered at any stage of
the proceedings. Necessity for sanction
may reveal itself in the course of the
progress of the case and it would be open
9 All Sr. Kafeel @ Dr. Kafeel Ahmed Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
945
to accused to place material during the
course of trial for showing what his duty
was. Accused has the right to lead evidence
in support of his case on merits."

fdUrq mDr fu.kZ; ds rF; orZeku izdj.k ds
rF;ksa ls fHkUu gSa] blfy, mDr fu.kZ; dk dksbZ ykHk mUgsa
ugha fey ldrk gSA

14& eSaus mHk; i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrkvksa ds rdksZ
ds ifjizs{; esa i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ,oa muds }kjk]
ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ,oa mPp U;k;ky;ksa }kjk
ikfjr fu.kZ;ksa ,oa fof/k O;oLFkkvksa dk voyksdu fd;kA

15& bl izdj.k ds fuLrkj.k gsrq /kkjk 196 dks
vorfjr fd;k tkuk vko';d gS] tks fuEuor gS %&

"196. Prosecution for offences
against the State and for criminal
conspiracy to commit such offence.

(1)
No
Court
shall
take
cognizance of-

(a)
any
offence
punishable
under Chapter VI or under section 153A,
( Section 295 A or sub section (1) of
section 505] of the Indian Penal Code
(45 of 1860 ) or

(b) a criminal conspiracy to
commit such offence, or

(c) any such abetment, as is
described in section 108A of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), except with the
previous
sanction
of
the
Central
Government or of the State Government.

(1A)
No
Court
shall
take
cognizance of-

(a)
any
offence
punishable
under section 153B or sub- section (2) or
sub- section (3) of section 505 of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), or

(b) a criminal conspiracy to
commit such offence, except with the
previous
sanction
of
the
Central
Government or of the State Government or
of the District Magistrate.]

(2)
No
Court
shall
take
cognizance of the offence of any criminal
conspiracy punishable under section 120B
of the Indian Penal code (45 of 1860 ),
other than a criminal conspiracy to commit
[an
offence]
punishable
with
death,
imprisonment
for
life
or
rigorous
imprisonment for a term of two years or
upwards, unless the State Government or
the District Magistrate has consented in
writing to the initiation of the proceedings:

Provided that where the criminal
conspiracy is one to which the provisions of
section 195 apply, no such consent shall be
necessary.

(3) The Central Government or
the
State
Government
may,
before
according sanction [ under sub- section (1)
or sub- section (1A) and the District
Magistrate may, before according sanction
under sub- section (1A) and the State
Government or the District Magistrate
may, before giving consent under sub-
section
(2),
order
a
preliminary
investigation by a police officer not being
below the rank of Inspector, in which case
such police officer shall have the powers
referred to in sub-section (3) of section
155."

16& esjs fopkj ls vkosnd ds fo}ku
vf/koDrkx.k ds rdksa ,oa muds }kjk vius rdZ ds
leFkZu esa Swaraj Thackeray Vs. State of
Jharkhand & Ors. 2008 CRI. L. J. 3780
& Sarfaraz Sheikh Vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh esa izfrikfnr fof/k O;oLFkkvks
ds izdk'k esa ,oa /kkjk 196 na0iz0la0 dh mi/kkjk 1
946 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(v) ds izkfo/kkuksa ds vuqlkj /kkjk 153&v] 153&c]
505 (2) Hkk0na0fo0 esa vijk/k dk laKku ysus ds iwoZ
dsUnz ljdkj vFkok jkT; ljdkj vFkok ftykf/kdkjh
}kjk iwoZ vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr ugha yh x;h gS rFkk
fo}ku eftLVzsV us izlaKku dk vkns'k ikfjr djrs
le; lqlaxr izkfo/kkuksa dk leqfpr vuqikyu ugha
fd;kA

17& rn~uqlkj lacaf/kr voj U;k;ky; dh
dk;Zokgh esa T;knk foyEc u gks] blfy, /kkjk 482
na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr nk;j ;g vkosnu i= Lohdkj
fd;k tkrk gS rFkk eq0v0la0&700 lu~ 2019] vUrxZr
/kkjk 153&,] 153&ch] 505(2)] 109 Hkk0na0fo0] Fkkuk
flfoy ykbUl] ftyk vyhx<+ esa izsf"kr vkjksi i= la0
055 lu 2020] fnukafdr 16&3&2020 ls mn~Hkwr okn
la0 3250 lu 2020] LVsV olsZl Mk0 dQhy] tks eq[;
U;kf;d eftLVzsV] vyhx<+ ds U;k;ky; esa yfEcr gS
rFkk blesa ikfjr izlaKku vkns'k fn0 28&7&2020 dh
dk;Zokgh vikLr dh tkrh gS rFkk izdj.k dks eq[;
U;kf;d eftLVzsV] vyhx<+ ds U;k;ky; esa bl funsZ'k
ds lkFk izfrizsf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd /kkjk 196 (v)
na0iz0la0 ds izkfo/kkuksa ds vuqlkj dsUnz ljdkj vFkok
jkT; ljdkj vFkok ftykf/kdkjh }kjk iwoZ vfHk;kstu
Lohd`fr izkIr gksus ij gh vkosnd ds fo:) mijksDr
/kkjkvksa ds vUrxZr izlaKku dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k
tk;A

18& dk;kZy; dks funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd bl
vkns'k dh ,d izfrfyfi lacaf/kr voj U;k;ky; dks
vfoyEc Hkstuk lqfuf'pr fd;k tk;A
----------
(2021)09ILR A946
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK AGARWAL, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 9331 of 2021

Naveen Saxena ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Amit Daga

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - extra
ordinary jurisdiction - The Negotiable
instruments Act, 1981 - Section 138 -
Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of
funds - Section 139 - Presumption in
favour
of
holder
-
"stop
payment
instructions" - where there existed any
outstanding liability or not are questions
of facts and theses issues can only be
determined
by
the
trial
court
after
recording evidence - once a cheque is
issued and on presentation is dishonored,
penal provision is attracted as stopping of
payment will not preclude an action under
Section 138 N.I. Act. (Para - 10,11,22)

Cheque bounce - applicant lost a cheque -
lodged report with SSP - certificate issued by
the Branch Manager - applicant made request
to stop payment of cheque - criminal complaint
- summoning order- Quashing of - present
application.

HELD:-Thus, in view of the judicial scrutiny and
legal proposition of law, though the presumption
under Section 139 is rebuttable but it is for the
trial court to examine after evidence is led
before it and this is not a fit case to exercise
extra ordinary jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C.(Para - 23 )

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Amzad Pasha Vs H.N. Lakshmana, 2011 Cri.
L.J. 552

2. Raj Kumar Kh urana Vs St. of (NCT of Delhi)
& anr., (2009) 6 SCC 72

3. R. Kalyani Vs Janak C. Mehta & ors., 2009(1)
SCC 516

4. DCM Financial Services Ltd. Vs J.N. Sareen &
ors. 2008 (8) SCC 1.

5. HMT Watches Ltd.Vs M.A. Abida & anr.,
(2015) 11 SCC 776