Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.L.Singhal, J.
Surjit Singh Bhatia
Versus
Mehar Singh
Criminal Misc. No. 6591 of 1996,
Decided On : APRIL 1, 1997
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - Section 197 - Public Servant - Protection from Prosecution - Scope and Applicability - Judicial Officers Protection Act - Applicability to Revenue Officers - Quashing of Criminal Prosecution - Grounds.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Mohali, filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the quashing of an order summoning him for trial in a criminal complaint alleging forgery and fabrication of revenue records. The complaint arose from a dispute over a path in a village, where the petitioner, in his official capacity, had approved a mutation entry sanctioning the change of path without proper authority and in the absence of relevant records.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C., which requires prior sanction for prosecuting a public servant for an offense committed while acting in the discharge of official duty, as the act complained of was not connected with the performance of his official duty. The court also held that the petitioner was not a court as defined in Section 195 Cr.P.C. and therefore could not claim the protection of the Judicial Officers Protection Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner, a revenue officer, was entitled to the protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C., which requires prior sanction for prosecuting a public servant for an offense committed while acting in the discharge of official duty? 2. Whether the petitioner, as a revenue officer, could claim the protection of the Judicial Officers Protection Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C. because the act complained of, which was the sanctioning of a mutation entry without proper authority and in the absence of relevant records, was not connected with the performance of his official duty as a revenue officer. 2. The court held that the petitioner could not claim the protection of the Judicial Officers Protection Act because he was not a court as defined in Section 195 Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to the protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C. or the Judicial Officers Protection Act, and that the criminal prosecution against him could proceed.
M.L.Singhal, J.
1. This is a Crl. Misc Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 402 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner who is a retired Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Mohali whereby he has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 20.12.1995 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar declining to recall the order dated 22.1.1993 summoning him for trial. He has also prayed for quashing of the order dated 22.1.1993 summoning him for trial.
2. Facts necessary for appreciation of this prayer of the petitioner are as follows :-
Mehar Singh son of Sarwan Singh instituted complaint under Sections 468, 471 and 466 IPC in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar against Nirmal Singh, Jarnail Singh, Sulkhan Singh (Patwari), Gurbax Singh, Field Kanungo and the present petitioner Surjit Singh Bhatia, Assistant Collector Second Grade, Mohali on the allegations that Nirmal Singh filed an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) for changing path in village Dhoomchheri. He had impleaded Jarnail Singh as one of the respondents. Nirmal Singh and other proprietors of the village had been appearing before the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Mohali who dismissed the application on 7.9.1983. According to Mehar Singh, Nirmal Singh and Jarnail Singh joined hands and procured a different order on 8.9.1983 by deceiving the Additional Director of Consolidation of Holdings in the absence of the villagers and Mehar Singh and case was remanded to the Consolidation Officer for implementation of the order dated 8.9.1983. Consolidation Officer summoned Nirmal Singh time and again to hear him in the wake of remand order but he did not appear and the Consolidation Officer dismissed the remand case on 3.7.1984. Thereafter, Nirmal Singh and Jarnail Singh without requesting the Consolidation Officer or the Director joined hands with the Kanungo, Patwari and A.C.O. and got mutation No. 959 entered in their name in the absence of the parties. The accused ante-dated mutation entry as of 8.4.1992 and it was shown that mutation was sanctioned on 9.4.1992 though the relevant documents were not with them. According to Mehar Singh, all the accused committed forgery in the revenue record and prepared false entry and false mutation showing the new path without any authority and without any order. Vide order dated 22.1.1993 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar, accused were summoned for trial.
3. Petitioner moved an application for the recall of that order dated 22.1.1993. Vide impugned order dated 20.12.1995, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar refused to recall that order.
4. In support of his prayer for the quashing of the complaint, the order summoning him passed on 22.1.1993 and the order dated 20.12.1995 refusing to recall the summoning order, it is averred by the petitioner that there was a dispute between Mehar Singh, Nirmal Singh, Jarnail Singh and others and the Consolidation Officer allowed path from the joint boundary wall of Kila No. 22/10, 11, 22/2, 9, 12 west. Nirmal Singh filed appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer before the Settlement Officer who vide order dated 22.6.1981 set aside the order of Consolidation Officer and allowed the new path. Annexure P1 is the order passed by the Settlement Officer dated 22.6.1981. Aggrieved from order dated 22.6.1981, Annexure P1, Nirmal Singh filed further appeal to the Director, Consolidation of Holdings under Section 42 of the said Act. Additional Director vide order dated 8.9.1983 remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer saying that path be widened from 2 karams to 4 karams and the case be decided after hearing both the parties. Annexure P2 is the said order passed by Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings dated 8.9.1983. Vide order dated 3.7.1984, Consolidation Officer dismissed the case of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
