VIRENDRA KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner against issuance of charge-sheet to the petitioner vide letter dated 22/05/2017 (Annexure P/1) issued by Collector District-Sheopur.

(2.) Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner at the relevant point of time holding the post of Additional Collector in District- Sheopur. An application for grant of permission to sale some land was filed by one Ramnath s/o Laxman in the Court of petitioner which was considered and order was passed by the petitioner on 04/02/2017 granting permission to said person for such sale transaction. The said order has been passed by the petitioner in the capacity of revenue Court and therefore, as per the submissions of the petitioner, he enjoyed the immunity as provided under Sections 2 and 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 (for brevity "Act of 1985"). The intervenor- Dashrath Singh Parihar was the Bureau Chief of Dainik Bhaskar and as per the allegations of the petitioner, he was personally interested in some part of land bearing Survey No.952/4 (part of the land) which was alleged to be sold by the petitioner therefore, he published a news item which appears to be derogatory to the petitioner and his image therefore, notice under the Contempt of Courts Act , 1971 (for short "Act of 1971") has been issued to him which was deliberately avoided by Dashrath Singh Parihar and therefore, same cannot be served and executed.

(3.) On the date of incident, it appears that intervenor-Dashrath Singh Parihar visited the office of Collector Sheopur and on information received, petitioner called Dashrath Singh through his security guard and when intervenor started shouting and abusing petitioner, then compelled by the circumstances, petitioner proceeded against him under Section 345 of Cr.P.C. by imposing fine of Rs.200/-, and given notice which the intervenor refused to accept. Since intervenor did not deposit the fine amount therefore, he was sent to jail for 1 day. After coming out from the jail, intervenor appears to have made some complaint and therefore, petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 19/04/2017 and charge-sheet has been issued to him with the articles of charges as referred in the charge-sheet.