Shimla: The Himachal Pradesh High Court has allowed the appeal of Anurag Thakur, BJP MP and president of Indian cricket Board and quashed a criminal case registered against him and others by police in Dharamsala.
Justice Rajiv Sharma ruled that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharamsala, had no jurisdiction in the case as there was no complaint in writing before him by the “public servant concerned or his superior”.
“The material placed on record was not sufficient to initially permit the investigation of the case and thereafter to summon the accused and put them to notice of accusation and accordingly, the petition is allowed”, the HC said.
“The complaint filed by the SHO, Police Staion, Dharamshala, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharamshala, ACJM, and summoning order dated March 10, 2014 and notice of accusation dated November 7,2015 and other consequential orders are quashed and set aside and pending applications, if any stand disposed off”, the HC order said.
The appeal was filed by Anurag Thakur and others under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the complaint along with summoning order/notice of accusation and all other consequential proceedings.
The HC bench in its order pointed out that the petitioner (Anurag Thakur) was a third-time Member of Parliament and also elected as Secretary of the Board of Control Cricket in India in March, 2015.
A case of “causing obstruction in working of government servant” was registered against the defendants but the expression ‘obstruct’ used in Section 186 of Indian Penal Code envisages actual resistance and obstacle in the way of public servant and it implies use of criminal force.
So, if these petitioners are alleged to have assaulted the Dalpati and the Mukhia in the course of voluntarily obstructing the public servant from discharging their duties, the offences under Sections 323, 324 and 353 of Indian Penal Code are so connected with the primary offence of Section 186 of IPC that it is difficult to say that those offences constituted separate offences other than an offence under Section 186 of IPC.
The bench observed that “there must be a complaint by the public servant whose lawful order has not been complied with, the complaint must be in writing and provisions of Section 195 CrPC are mandatory and the Court cannot assume cognizance of the case without such a complaint. In the absence of such a complaint, the trial and conviction will be void ab initio being without jurisdiction.
