CHANDRESH SINGH BAGHEL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a public servant. Respondent No.2 proceeded against him without sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, proceeding in Criminal Complaint Case No.689/2015 is not liable to continue against the petitioner. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Manorama Tiwari and Others v. Supendra Nath Rai, (2016) 1 SCC 594 and Rajesh Singh and Others v. Smt. Savitri Rajak and Another, (M.Cr.C. No.17952/2014 decided on 22.07.2016).

(2.) Counsel for the respondent No.2 has raised objection. He contends that at the time of incident, the petitioner was not performing his official duty. Hence, umbrella under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is not available to him. Counsel for the respondent No.2 has relied on the decisions in the cases of Choudhury Parveen Sultana v. State of West Bengal, (SLP (Cri.) No.2864/2007) , Pukhraj v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., AIR 1973 SC 2591 , K. Kalimuthu v. State by DSP, (Appeal (Cri.) No.469/2005 decided on 30.03.2005) and B. Saha and Others v. M.S. Kochar, (1979) 4 SCC 177.

(3.) Perused the record. From the complaint itself, it appears that the respondent No.2 has purchased tractor from Rai Industries, New Galla Mandi, Sagar. There are some dispute between the respondent No.2 and the owner of the aforesaid agency and other persons. On the report filed by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner and other accused persons, Citi Superintendent of Police conducted an enquiry as directed by the Superintendent of Police, Sagar. He found the respondent No.2 himself delivered the possession of the tractor in dispute to Manoj Rai, owner of Rai Industries. He signed the panchnama of supurdgi. It is also found that a false complaint was filed by the respondent No.2 against the owner of the tractor agency. In the facts of the case, the decisions relied upon by counsel for the respondent are not applicable in this case.