NAU BAHAR KOSHAL Vs. WAHEGURU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER No. 1 is the President of the Municipal Committee, Ahmedgarh, while the remaining petitioners are Municipal Commissioners of that Committee. They have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing criminal complaint filed by respondent Waheguru Singh and the orders passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Malerkotla, summoning them as accused in that complaint.

(2.) THE facts as alleged in the petition are that the Municipal Committee, Ahmedgarh, received an application signed by about 36 residents of Ahmedgarh, regarding the conduct of respondent Waheguru Singh and his wife. In the application it was mentioned that Waheguru Singh in connivance with his wife was running a brothel in his house and near that house two High Schools for girls were situated. On 30th April, 1981, the Municipal Committee passed the following resolution : - "50(9). Proposal of members of the Municipal Committee, Ahemedgarh. That in Ward No. 13 Ahmedgarh, there lived a man named as Waheguru Singh. He and his wife Shrimati Mohinder Kaur mutually at their residence have started a brothel. In this respect, written requests have already been sent to the higher authorities and by virtue of which he left Ahmedgarh for one month. Now, again, he started to live at this place and is running with his work accordingly. Near his residence, two Girls High Schools are situated and due to his residence, bad impression is being created. It is unanimously resolved that again the higher authorities be requested to expel them immediately from this town. A copy of this resolution be sent for necessary action to Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur, S.S.P. Sangrur, D.S.P. Malerkotla and Station House Officer, Ahmedgarh." On coming to know of the above resolution Waheguru Singh filed a criminal complaint under Sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Malerkotla, against the petitioners. After recording peliminary evidence, the Magistrate passed an order on 20th November 1981, summoning the accused to face trial under the above sections.

(3.) IT was further alleged in the petition that the resolution was passed by the petitioners in the performance of their duties as public servants and as such no prosecution could be launched against them without prior sanction of the State Government, as provided under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Certain other grounds have also been taken in the petition but those were not argued before me and, therefore, it is not necessary to mention them.