SURJEET SINGH Vs. JAGDISH KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has assailed the judgment of Sessions Judge, Mandi in Criminal Revision No. 23 of 1986, whereby the complaint moved by the petitioner for the prosecution of the respondents for offences like Ss. 141, 427, 109/34 of the Indian Penal Code was quashed on the ground that of want of sanction under section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter shortly ˜the Code).

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner preferred a complaint for the prosecution of the respondents for the offences mentioned hereinabove, on the allegations that on 17 -4 -1985, the respondents came to the place of occurrence where the truck HIM -I925 owned by the petitioner/ was parked for the purpose of repairs. The place was notified parking place and board was duly displayed for the purpose. This place was in front of Happy Automobile Works owned by the son of the petitioner -Kirpal Singh. The first respondent enquired about the ownership of the truck and he was told that the truck was owned by the petitioner. It was also stated that it was at the parking place and would be removed very soon. The first respondent threatened Kirpal Singh that he would be arrested and instead of permitting him some time to remove the truck, the first respondent asked the other respondents to throw the truck in sketi Khud (river) Accordingly, the truck was thrown into the Sketi Khud. According to the petitioner, the Police and the Tehsildar who had also come on the spot, did not do anything in the commission of the crime. The accused has common intention to come to the spot and throw the vehicle into the river. By this act, the respondents made themselves liable for the offences already reproduced above, and also caused damage to the vehicle to the extent of Rs. 30,000.

(3.) In order to support the complaint, the petitioner examined himself, (Surjeet Singh) Avtar Singh, Kirpal Singh and Shashi Bhushan. After examining the complaint and the evidence, the trial Judge directed the respondents to appear in his Court on 4 -6 -1986. This order was assailed by the respondents before the Sessions Judge, Mandi, who by the impugned judgment, quashed the proceedings. This is how, the matter has been agitated in this Court by way of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.