The strict definition of 'public servant' under Section 21 IPC must be applied in determining whether an offense under Sections 332 and 353 IPC has been committed.

1. - This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 718/2012 registered at Police Station-Mathura Gate, Bharatpur upto extent of offences under sections 332 and 353 IPC.

2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner is an Advocate by profession and practicing at District Court, Bharatpur. The respondent no. 2 lodged an FIR No. 718/2012 at Police Station- Mathura Gate, Bharatpur against the present petitioner and his son for the offence under section 332 and 353 IPC.

3. The contention of the present petition is that the RUIDP wanted to construct a water tank in the Krishna Nagar in the public park which is causing nuisance in the park. The petitioner raised his voice for constructing the water tank at some other place and also filed the civil suit. In this suit,the respondent no. 2 filed an application for impleading him as party. Petitioner also filed a PIL before the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court has ordered that while ascertaining technical aspects of the matter, an expert opinion should be called for and thereafter only the representations of the various persons should be decided and also it should be considered that at which place the water tank should be constructed. In this backdrop, the Government officials were gone at site to ascertain the viability of the construction of the water tank. The presence of respondent no. 2 was neither required nor expected at the place but with the ulterior motive he went at the spot in his personal capacity and lodged a false report against him under section 332 and 353 IPC.

4. Per contra, the contention of respondent no. 2 is that he was at the spot in his official capacity. He was called by the ADM to ascertain the facts at the spot. Other persons, Commissioner Municipal Council and Executive Engineer were also called for inspection of the site. He was in capacity of public servant and criminal force has been used against him and the matter has already been investigated by the competent investigator. ADM and Commissioner Municipal Council have also stated that the present petitioner has used criminal force and after investigation the police has reached to a conclusion that offences under sections 332 & 353 IPC are made out against the present petitioner. Hence, FIR should not be quashed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR and other relevant documents which have been placed on record by counsel for both the parties. Written statements of the petitioner have also been considered.

6. The contention of the present petitioner is that the respondent no. 2 was not in a capacity of public servant at the time of incident and reliance has been placed on D. Chattaiah and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 1441 , wherein it has been held that there should be real nexus or casual connection or consequential relation with the performance of his duty as public servant. Here in the present case there was no nexus between the incident and the presence of the present petitioner, he was interested in construction of water tank on specific place and hence he has moved an application in civil suit to implead him party and he was at the place of incident in his personal capacity. Furthermore, reliance has been placed on Crimes VI- 1990(2) page 210, Adi P. Gandhi v. State wherein it has been held that when an advocate is engaged by a Government official he has no duty prescribed by such engagement or under the statute in relation to such engagement. An advocate so engaged works as an advocate and that is not a public duty, hence he could not be termed as public servant. On the strength of this, the contention of the petitioner is that respondent no. 2 was not a public servant and hence offences under sections 332 of 353 IPC could not be made out against the present petitioner.

7. Per contra, the respondent has relied on 2001 Cr.L.J. 3129, Appadirai v. State , wherein Gov