KANNAN ALIAS KRISHNA RAJAN Vs. R A VARADARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the petitions and the Judgment of the lower Courts, and the record in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. V. Ramesh, Advocate for the respondent, and the petitioner not appearing in person or by Advocate the Court made the following order :- The revision petitioner is absent. Therefore, on hearing the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent, the order is passed.

(2.) This revision is against the order of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem in C.R.P. No. 17 of 1989 setting aside the order of discharge passed by the Judicial Magistrate of Tiruchengode in P.R. No. 13 of 1987 dated 16-11-1988.

(3.) The respondent herein is the complainant before the learned Magistrate alleging that the revision petitioner and others had committed the offences under Sections 148, 149, 427, 109, 114, 453, 448 and 398 of Indian Penal Code. He alleged that as owner of certain buildings he was occupying those buildings and as there was an attempt on the part of the revision petitioner herein to intervene in his possession, he filed a civil suit against him and some others in O.S. No. 706 of 1982 on the file of Sub Court, Salem, and also obtained interim injunction against them restraining from interfering with his possession. He has alleged that subsequently the revision petitioner herein in collusion with the 8th accused in the complaint, obtained a collusive order from the Rent Controller, Tiruchengode, for eviction of 8th accused, though he was not in possession and on the strength of that order of eviction, dispossessed him and his family members unlawfully and also demolished the building to wreak his vengeance. Hence he has filed the private complaint for the offences alleged in the complaint. The offence under Section 398 of Indian Penal Code, is triable by the Court of Session and, therefore, the learned Magistrate, Tiruchengode was not even a trial Judge of this matter. However, in the committal proceedings, it appears, the learned Magistrate has held that the complainant has not proved his title to the building and, therefore, the complaint was not maintainable and discharged the accused. From the narration of the facts by the learned Sessions Judge it appears that the matter was taken up before the Sessions Court and the order of the learned Magistrate was set aside and as against that order, revision was filed before this court and the same also having been dismissed, the learned Magistrate, Tiruchengode restored the complaint filed for proceeding with the enquiry for the committal of the case under Sec. 209, Cr. P.C. In spite of the observation by the Sessions Court and also this court that the title of the complaint with regard to the building in which he was said to have been in possession cannot be gone into at this stage, it appears once again the learned Magistrate, Tiruchengode has given his finding that the title to the building has not been proved by the complainant and sanction was not obtained for the prosecution of A-18 who is an Amin of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode and the complainant has not produced anything to show the materials said to have been stolen from his house. As observed by the learned Sessions Judge, the findings of the learned Magistrate is nothing but deliberate contempt ignoring the directions given to him already by the Sessions Court. In the complaint itself it has been alleged that he was in possession of the building and in his absence, when his wife had locked up the door on seeing the accused persons who were armed with weapons, they broke open the door and while dispossessing them took away the articles which they had in their house. Therefore, there is clear version of the complaint that he was in possession of the house. There is allegation that in spite of the resistance made by the wife of the complainant, accused person entered into the house along with A-18 and demolished the house throwing out the articles they had in the house. Therefore, the complaint prima facie discloses the commission of the offence and the learned Magistrate has no right to go into the merit of the allegations made in the complaint. When the complaint discloses the commission of offence his duty was to commit the case to the Sessions Court and he has no powers to consider the veracity of the allegations made in the complaint. Further under Section 197(1) of Criminal Procedure Code it is not as if every public servant can be prosecuted only after obtaining the sanction from the Government. When a public servant can be removed only by the order of the Government, sanction is required. Therefore, for the Amin working in the District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode, no sanction is required for prosecution, because for his removal from the service, Government need not pass any order. Some how the learned Magistrate has misdirected himself in passing such erroneous order and, therefore, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, was perfectly right in setting aside the order passed by the Magistrate and ordering the continuation of proceedings. I find no substance in the revision and, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. 3A. In the result, the revision is dismissed Cr. M.O. No. 14491 of 1989 is also dismissed.Petition dismissed.