SURINDER SINGH DHILLON Vs. AVTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner - Surinder Singh Dhillon has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the complaint No. 20-A, dated 13.6.2005, filed against him by Avtar Singh- respondent under Sections 499 and 500 IPC, pending in the Court of JMIC, summoning order dated 1.7.2009 and the orders dated 9.10.2009 passed by JMIC, Nabha and 2.11.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Patiala.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, as pleaded in the petition, is that he was posted as B.D.P.O Nabha and at that time respondent was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Village Kaidpur. While doing his official duties, he checked the record of the Gram Panchayat for the year 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and also enquired about the development works got done by the respondent. During that inspection irregularities were found, about which he wrote a letter No. 192, dated 9.7.2002 to the Director, Village Development and Panchayat Department, Chandigarh. The Deputy Director, Panchayat, while exercising powers of the Director under Section 20(4) of The Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, suspended the respondent on 17.10.2002. In that respect news was published in the local news papers. The respondent filed an appeal against the order of suspension, which was accepted by the Secretary and thereafter the respondent filed the above said complaint, in which he was summoned to stand his trial under Section 499 and 500 IPC, vide order dated 1.7.2009. He appeared before the trial Court and made an application for discharging him on the ground that the Act was done by him in the performance of his official duties. That application was dismissed vide order dated 9.10.2009, against which he filed an appeal, which was also dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. The said news items were not got published by him and those were published on the basis of general information collected by the reporters of the news papers. Whatever act was done was done by him in discharge of his official duties. The respondent has applied for obtaining sanction of prosecution, which was denied by the State Government vide letter dated 6.5.2005.

(3.) Notice of the petition was given to the respondent.