SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by way of this petition has challenged the FIR registered against him U/s 420, 120B IPC wherein the complainant has alleged that the petitioner along with other Directors of Hotel Company got forced service affected on the complainants resulting in an ex parte decree being passed relating to the land belonging to the complainants.

(2.) Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a process server and would come within the ambit of public servant and, therefore, he is protected in terms of Section 197 Cr.P.C. His further submissions is that so far as service summons is concerned, the same is governed by the provisions laid down under Order 5 CPC.

(3.) Learned counsel has specifically stressed from under Order 5 Rule 17 & Order 5 Rule 19 CPC to submit that a process server's report is not the sine qua non for treating the service as complete on the defendants in a suit and it was the duty of the concerned court to have followed the provisions of Rule 19 before further proceedings ex parte.