* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:
28. h August, 2018 CRL.M.C. 2004/2009 MUKESH KUMAR ........ Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. H.D. Birdi, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus MANORANJAN & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS
Represented by: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sharat Kapoor and Ms. Sneh Suman, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.
(ORAL) Crl. M.A. No.15307/2017 (seeking certificate for leave to appeal) 1. By this application under Articles 134(1) (c) and 134A of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks certificate for leave to appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the judgment dated 7th July, 2017 passed by this Court in Crl.M.C. No.2004/2009 and Crl.M.A. No.14768/2016.
2. Brief background of the case is that the petitioner filed a complaint being Crl. Complaint No.1037/1/06 titled as ‘Mukesh Kumar vs. Dr.Manoranjan and others’, before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate seeking summoning of the respondents No.1 and 2 besides others as accused for offences punishable under Sections 420/468/471/166/167/120B/34 IPC and Sections 7 and 10 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (in short ‘the Act’). CRL.M.C. 2004/2009 Page 1 of 5 3. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 6th May, 2008 summoned the accused including the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein namely Dr. Manoranjan and Shri Rajiv Shekhar, Secretary, Ministry of Steel, Union of India and Deputy General Manager, Steel Authority of India respectively.
4. Aggrieved by the said order dated 6th May, 2008 respondent Nos.1 and 2 along with Steel Authority of India and Union of India, filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge which was allowed vide order dated 4th May, 2009 and the order summoning respondents No.1 and 2 as accused dated 6th May, 2008 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was set aside. Vide order dated 4th May, 2009 the learned Additional Sessions Judge remanded the matter back to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate directing him to exercise his jurisdiction of taking cognizance of the offence only after the petitioner obtains sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and places the same on record since the allegations against the public servants were in discharge of their official duty.
5. Vide judgment dated 7th July, 2017 this Court following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as AIR1955SC287Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. State of Bombay; (1955) 2 SCR925 AIR1956SC44Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari; (1993) 3 SCC339State of Maharashtra v. Budhikota Subbarao (Dr); (2004) 8 SCC31S.K. Zutshi v. Bimal Debnath, and 2016 SCC OnLine SC357Devinder Singh & Ors.v. State of Punjab through CBI upheld the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and dismissed the petition and application filed by the petitioner.
6. The grievance of the petitioner as noted in Para-4(B) of the grounds is that the petitioner in his written arguments quoted number of decisions which were neither discussed nor distinguished while dismissing the petition CRL.M.C. 2004/2009 Page 2 of 5 vide order dated 7th July, 2017. By this application, in para 3 the petitioner claims that substantial question of law or principles of great general importance are involved for granting certificate for leave to appeal namely: “3. Substantial questions of law or principles of great general importance involved for granting Certificate for leave to Appeal are: Qn.1: Whether principle of natural justice is violated for the petitioner when his material arguments (both written and oral) are not discussed or distinguished in the impugned Order dated 7.7.2017 passed by the Hon’ble High Court?. If yes, what can be the appropriate remedy or Rule under Article 145 (1)(b), (e) of the Constitution for entitling him to be heard by the Hon’ble High Court and also allow the petitioner to take audio-visual recording of his arguments in the Court?. Qn.2: Whether public servants employed in public sector enterprises and removable in terms of Companies Act, 2013, are engaged within the “affairs of the Union” or otherwise qualify requirement of sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C.?. Qn.3: Whether flouting, concealment or otherwise denial of any the Presidential Directives/Government of India of instructions of SCs/STs/OBCs shall amount to an offence u/s 7 (2) (i) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955?. reservation on in promotion Qn.4: If answer to the Qn.3 above is affirmative, then whether revengeful administrative acts of the public servant to ‘annoy’ an individual member of the community shall amount to an offence u/s 7 (1) (b) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955?. Qn.5: Whether inquiry by the Ld. Magistrate under Chapter – XVI of Cr.P.C. in matters of government servant CRL.M.C. 2004/2009 Page 3 of 5 7. (respondent no.1) can be denied for want of sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. at the stage of summoning u/s 204 Cr.P.C., especially when more material facts are expected to be discovered by way of evidence at the stage of trial due to confidential nature of the administrative function of the government servant?. In the said Cr.M.A. 13803/2017 filed before this Hon’ble Court, the petitioner has stated Qn.2 to Qn.5 as substantial questions of law on general importance for seeking certificate on leave to appeal for consideration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.” In the order dated 7th July, 2017 this Court noted that though the petitioner has elaborately argued on various issues which were not required to be considered by this Court for the reason the learned Additional Sessions Judge had allowed the revision petition filed by the respondents only on the ground of sanction and thus this Court was required to confine itself to the arguments of the petitioner and respondents on the point of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
8. The law for grant of leave to appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 134 (1) (c) and Article 134A of the Constitution of India has been succinctly laid down in the decision reported as AIR1956SC411 1956 CriL.J.
801 Sunder Singh vs. State of U.P.; AIR1958SC22Khushal Rao vs. State of Bombay, AIR1965SC1467Babu vs. State of U.P.; AIR1968SC733Mohan Lal Magan Lal Thacker vs. State of Gujarat and 2003 SCC OnLine MP411Shyam Narayan vs. Union of India and it has been held that if a case does not involve any question of law then howsoever difficult the question of fact may be that would not justify grant of certificate under Article 134 (1) (c) and Article 134A of the Constitution of India. CRL.M.C. 2004/2009 Page 4 of 5 9. As noted above the issue of sanction on which the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was passed has been elaborately dealt with by this Court following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court was not required to go into other issues argued, hence no question of law is involved so as to entail grant of certificate for leave to appeal under Article 134 (1) (c) and Article 134A of the Constitution of India to the petitioner.
10. Application is dismissed. (MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE AUGUST28 2018 ‘vn’ CRL.M.C. 2004/2009 Page 5 of 5