SANT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gurmeet Singh-respondent No. 2 filed a criminal complaint under Section 342/384/392/120-B of the IPC against the petitioners Sant Kumar, S.H.O. Police Station Raikot, and Charan Singh, A.S.I. Police Station Raikot and two others. It is stated that the complainant is a Sarpanch of the village and also otherwise enjoyed good reputation and in the performance of his duties as a Sarpanch, he incurred displeasure of Gurnam Singh son of Roor Singh, resident of village Binjal Police Station Rajkot. The said Gurnam Singh in league with Sant Kumar petitioner, who is the S.H.O. and under whose jurisdiction this village fell, illegality detained him and his younger brother. It is stated that Sant Kumar petitioner No. 1 and Charan Singh petitioner No. 2 came to the house of the complainant along with Gurnam Singh aforesaid on 6-12-1987 at about 6 a.m. and took his brother Gursewal Singh from their house without any rhyme or reason. No case was registered against his brother nor were warrants of arrest issued by any Court against him. The complainant asked the petitioner Sant Kumar as to why they were taking him. He was asked to talk to the MHC Ramji Dass, who is turn informed him that Gurnam Singh had paid a good amount and if he wanted his brother released he should pay Rs. 5,000.00 to petitioner Sant Kumar, Due to the false detention of his brother, the complainant filed a Criminal Law Petition No. 1877 of 1987 in this Court for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. A Warrant Officer was appointed who conducted a raid at the police station and found Gursewal Singh, the brother of the complainant, to be illegally detained in the police station. The petitioner Sant Kumar was asked by the Warrant Officer if there was any case registered against said Gursewal Singh who informed him that no case was registered. On these allegations, the complaint was filed in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jagraon. The learned Magistrate summoned the accused in the case who on their appearance filed an application under Section 197(2) of the Cr.P.C. for their discharge for want of sanction. This application was dismissed by the learned trial Magistrate vide his order dated 31-1-1990. It is against the said order that the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners accused assailing the same.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the act done by the petitioners was in discharge of their official duties and, therefore, the cognizance of the alleged offence attributed to them could not be taken without the sanction of the competent authority in compliance with the provisions of Section 197 of the Cr.P.C.