Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)
SINGLE BENCH
Pankaj Bhandari, J.
DATARAM — Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3701 of 2013
Decided on : 14-08-2019
Counsel for Appearing Parties
Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, For the Appellants; Mr. Anshul Sharma., For Complainants; Mr. Arvind Bhadu, PP, For State
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the act of a public servant, done in the performance of public duty, requires sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. to prevent needless or vexatious prosecution.
Headnote:
Criminal Misc. Petition - Cognizance against Public Servant - The court quashed the order taking cognizance against the petitioner, a public servant, for removing encroachments in compliance with a High Court order, holding that the act was done in the performance of public duty and required sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a public servant, removed encroachments in compliance with a High Court order. Subsequently, a complaint was lodged against the petitioner for the removal of encroachments, leading to the court taking cognizance against the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the act of removing encroachments was done in the performance of public duty, as directed by the High Court, and required sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. The court held that the continuation of proceedings would tantamount to an abuse of process of the Court and quashed the order taking cognizance against the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the act of removing encroachments by the petitioner, a public servant, in compliance with a High Court order, required sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle established in 'Anjani Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Anr.' (2008) and held that when the same act is done in official duty, Section 197 of Cr.P.C. would come into play, requiring sanction for prosecution. The court emphasized the public interest in ensuring that official acts do not lead to needless or vexatious prosecution.
Final Decision: The court allowed the misc. petition, quashed the orders passed by the lower courts, and disposed of the pending proceedings, holding that the act of removing encroachments in compliance with a High Court order was done in the performance of public duty and required sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.
ORDER
1. Petitioner has preferred this Criminal Misc. Petition aggrieved by order dated 31.08.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Bharatpur, District Bharatpur, whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 21.05.2012 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Bharatpur, District Bharatpur, whereby he took cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 323, 427 & 504 of IPC was affirmed.
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was posted as S.D.M. in Bharatpur. On the date of alleged incident i.e. on 11.07.2011, petitioner was performing his duty as a public servant. Petitioner was posted as Commissioner, Municipal Council, Bharatpur. He removed the encroachment in pursuance of the directions of the High Court in a PIL. It is contended that Girdhari Lal had made certain encroachment, for removal of which, a team was constituted and the team visited the site on 04.07.2011. Girdhari Lal managed to create a mob and the encroachment could not be removed on that date. It is also contended that Girdhari Lal had filed civil suites but the same were dismissed by the Court vide judgment and order dated 25.10.2007 and 30.06.2011. Petitioner again alongwith his team went to remove the encroachment on 11.07.2011 and the encroachment was removed. After removal of the encroachment, when petitioner was in a public function, complainant's father alongwith mob attacked the petitioner and other Government employees, on which an FIR was lodged bearing No.545/2011. It is contended that to counterblast this FIR, complainant on the next date, lodged a complaint, wherein Court has taken cognizance against the nmS
3. It is also contended that petitioner is holding an important post in the Government. He was Commissioner, Municipal Council, Bharatpur and bound by the Rule of Law to discharge his duties and to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, he got the encroachment removed. He had worked in his official capacity. Hence, without obtaining sanction, Court could not have taken cognizance against the petitioner.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on "Anjani Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Anr. 2008(2) Crimes 202 (SC)".
5. Counsel for the complainant has opposed the misc. petition. It is contended that petitioner has prior to the date of offence removed an unauthorized construction. He was still insisting on breaking the shop of complainant. Petitioner has exceeded the powers vested in him and has abused the complainant and has thrown his cart.
6. I have considered the contentions.
7. Complainant has not produced any document before the Court below to establish that he was having a valid license to run a shop. In his complaint itself, he has mentioned that his stairs were earlier broken by the petitioner and on that day, his machine was pushed down by the petitioner. Petitioner is a senior officer of the rank of S.D.M., who was working as a Commissioner, Municipal Council, Bharatpur and was bound to perform his duty, more particularly, when an order was passed in PIL by the High Court, for removing encroachments. Petitioner earlier went to the spot but members of a particular political party formed an unlawful assembly and stopped him from performing his duty on 04.07.2011. Thereafter, petitioner again went to the spot and removed the encroachment.
8. Apex Court in Anjani Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (Supra) has observed that when same act is done in official duty, Section 197 of Cr.P.C. would come in play. The ultimate justification for the protection conferred by Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is the public interest in seeing that official acts do not lead to needless or vexatious prosecution.
9. Complainant is not having valid license to run a shop. Petitioner prior to lodging of complaint lodged an FIR against the encroachers who after removal of encroachments tried to attack the Petitioner and Government staff. Present complaint is lodged on the next
