The overt-act of the public servant should be within the purview of their public duty to necessitate prosecution sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.

N.K. Gupta, J.:-

1. The applicant/complainant has preferred the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 20.4.2006 passed by the learned Additional Judge to the Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in Criminal Revision No. 20/2005 whereby the order dated 9.11.2004 passed by the Judicial Magisterial First Class, Tikamgarh in Criminal Complaint Case No. 906/2004 was confirmed in which it was directed that the complainant should bring a sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. against the respondents. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant/complainant had lodged a criminal complaint against 21 persons, out of them the respondents were the public servants. It was pleaded in the criminal complaint that the complainant was the owner of the land bearing Survey No. 960 Mouja Madhuvan Tahsil and District Tikamgarh. Part of that land was purchased by the applicant from Rajaram Jain and some part of the land was purchased from Premlal. In this land the applicant was interested to establish higher secondary school and a college. The land was mutated in the name of various landlords. According to the revenue records of the year 1961 Chhotelal Darji was the owner of the land, who transferred the land to Rajaram Jain. Some survey numbers were left in the record but name of Rajaram Jain was mutated on 7.7.1988. After ten years Rajaram Jain sold that land to the applicant. On 15.6.1999 the proposed accused No. 17 Rajendra Adhravaryu wrote a letter in objectionable words claiming sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the applicant and he sent a complaint to the State Minister and the President of the District Planning Committee. The SDO Tikamgarh after enquiry vide order dated 25.6.1999 found that the complaint was baseless and thereafter the proposed accused Rajendra Adhravaryu moved a proceeding under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. which was closed on 11.10.2000. The revision filed was also dismissed vide order dated 4.10.2001. Thereafter the proposed accused Rajendra Adhravaryu moved a criminal revision before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh. An application for stay regarding construction was moved, which was dismissed on 13.12.2002. On the information given by the proposed accused Rajendra Adhravaryu, the Collector Tikamgarh took sou-motu revision and passed an order dated 30.3.2001 that the aforesaid land be registered in the name of the Govt., if it was a Government land. Thereafter the revision was filed before the Commissioner, Sagar, but it was dismissed on 26.7.2001. The applicant went to the Revenue Board, Gwalior and vide order dated 2.12.2002 the Revenue Board Gwalior accepted the petition and the sou-motu revision was quashed. The respondents No. 1 and 2 were the Revenue Officers and subordinate to the Revenue Board and they had to follow the orders passed by the Revenue Board.

2. Thereafter the proposed accused No. 1 to 7 moved an application in connivance with the proposed accused No. 17 Rajendra Adhravaryu to initiate proceeding and thereafter on 22.12.2002 at about 8:00 AM when Naresh, brother of the complainant was on the spot, the proposed accused No. 8, 9, 13 and 15 alongwith police went to the spot and tried to get the possession of the property. Some of the proposed accused persons prepared a case file and they arrested Naresh and assaulted him. Under such circumstances, a complaint was moved against as many as 21 accused persons including the respondents No. 1 to 4.

3. The learned JMFC Tikamgarh vide order dated 27.6.2003 registered a criminal complaint for the offence under Sections 447, 332, 506-B of I.P.C. against all the accused persons except the accused No. 16. The various respondents went in criminal revision against the order of registration passed by the learned JMFC Tikamgarh and vide order dated 27.8.2004 the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Tikamgarh remanded the case with a direction that the order dated 27.6