(1.) THE prayer in the instant petition is to quash the order dated 24.07.2009 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari setting aside the summoning order passed against respondent No. 5 and also dismissing the revision against refusal to summon respondent Nos. 2 to 4 by the Magistrate. The prayer against respondent No. 5 no more survives as this respondent has admittedly died during pendency of the proceedings about one year ago. The facts emerging from record are that pages No. 89 and 91 of Roznamcha of the Police Station (daily diary report) for the year 2001 were replaced by SHO of the Police Station in connivance with Inspector Bhoop Singh to wrongfully mark the absence of petitioner from duty. These two police officials were accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the complaint. The petitioner at the relevant time was posted as Constable in the said Police Station. After recording preliminary evidence, the SHO and Inspector Bhoop Singh were summoned by the Magistrate to face trial for offences under Sections 166/167/466/467/469/471/474/405/506 and Section 120 -B of Indian Penal Code (IPC). The revisions filed by them to challenge the order of summoning also were dismissed on 24.07.2009 by the same common order of Additional Sessions Judge.
(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State Counsel and counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5, I find no merit in the instant petition for the reasons enumerated hereunder.
(3.) I am of the view that the nature of allegations against the respondents clearly relate to official acts or at least the acts purporting to be in performance of the official duties for which sanction of the competent authority is required for prosecuting them. If for the sake of arguments it is contended that the respondents have taken wrong view still the case would fall under the aforesaid mischief requiring sanction to prosecute. The main persons who are stated to have forged Roznamcha by replacing two pages are facing trial on the basis of the summoning order.