Sant Lal Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Sant Lal vs State of U.P. and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jan 22, 1998

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/465566

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/465566
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: G.S.N. Tripathi, J.
Decided On: Jan 22, 1998
Case Number: Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 141 of 1998
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal - prosecution of public servant - Sections 323, 447, 448, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - complaint against three public servant along with three private person - sanction of State Government required to prosecute public servants - complaint against private persons is maintainable. -

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 323, 447, 448, 504 and 506

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sant Lal

Advocate S.K. Misra, Adv.

Respondent

State of U.P. and Others

Advocate S.C.

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 323, 447, 448, 504 and 506
Reported In: 1998(2)AWC876

Excerpt

criminal - prosecution of public servant - sections 323, 447, 448, 504 and 506 of indian penal code, 1860 - complaint against three public servant along with three private person - sanction of state government required to prosecute public servants - complaint against private persons is maintainable. - g.s.n. tripathi, j.1. the petition is being finally disposed of.2. the petitioner had filed a complaint before the learned magistrate concerned against ram avtar and sunder (private persons) and sarvashri arvlnd kr. jain, o. p. yadav and indra mani verrna (all public servants), alleging offences under sections 323, 504, 506, 447 and 448. i.p.c.3. the main thrust of the objections before the learned trial court was that so far as the aforesaid public servants are concerned, they cannot be prosecuted without the permission of the state government. this objection found favour with the learned magistrate concerned. he, accordingly, dismissed the complaint. similarly, in revision, being criminal revision no. 180 of 1997 filed by the complainant, the order of the learned trial court was upheld.4. in this court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has deleted the names of the aforesaid public servants, namely, sarvashri arvlnd kr. jain. o. p. yadav and indra mani verma, respondents no. 5, 6 and 7, from the array of the parties. therefore, the complaint against other private persons, becomes ipso facto acceptable before the learned magistrate concerned.5. i have perused the complaint and also gone through the evidence recorded before the learned trial court. prima facie there appears to be adequate evidence for taking cognizance against the private persons, (accused) namely, sunder ram, ram avtar and jitendra slngh.6. the petition is partly allowed, accordingly. the order passed by the courts below is upheld as regards the public servants (supra). the complaint as against these public servants, namely, sarvashri arvind kr. jain. o. p. yadav and indra mani, is dismissed for want of requisite permission.7. the complaint against ram avtar, sunder ram and jitendra singh shall proceed in accordance with law as there is adequate evidence to summon them.

Full Judgment

G.S.N. Tripathi, J.

1. The petition is being finally disposed of.

2. The petitioner had filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate concerned against Ram Avtar and Sunder (private persons) and Sarvashri Arvlnd Kr. Jain, O. P. Yadav and Indra Mani Verrna (all public servants), alleging offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 447 and 448. I.P.C.

3. The main thrust of the objections before the learned trial court was that so far as the aforesaid public servants are concerned, they cannot be prosecuted without the permission of the State Government. This objection found favour with the learned Magistrate concerned. He, accordingly, dismissed the complaint. Similarly, in revision, being Criminal Revision No. 180 of 1997 filed by the complainant, the order of the learned trial court was upheld.

4. In this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has deleted the names of the aforesaid public servants, namely, Sarvashri Arvlnd Kr. Jain. O. P. Yadav and Indra Mani Verma, respondents No. 5, 6 and 7, from the array of the parties. Therefore, the complaint against other private persons, becomes ipso facto acceptable before the learned Magistrate concerned.

5. I have perused the complaint and also gone through the evidence recorded before the learned trial court. Prima facie there appears to be adequate evidence for taking cognizance against the private persons, (accused) namely, Sunder Ram, Ram Avtar and Jitendra Slngh.

6. The petition is partly allowed, accordingly. The order passed by the Courts below is upheld as regards the public servants (supra). The complaint as against these public servants, namely, Sarvashri Arvind Kr. Jain. O. P. Yadav and Indra Mani, is dismissed for want of requisite permission.

7. The complaint against Ram Avtar, Sunder Ram and Jitendra Singh shall proceed in accordance with law as there is adequate evidence to summon them.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1998 Same Parties Sant Lal vs State of U.P. and Others Same Subject Criminal Same Judge G.S.N. Tripathi, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 323, 447, 448, 504 a...

Criminal In accordance with law State Government private person Public servant prima facie trial court