MAN SINGH DEORA Vs. DAULAT RATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED Mansingh Deora has filed this revision for quashing an order of the learned Judicial Magistrate (3), Jodhpur dated November, 19, 1982, by which cognizance for offences under sections 323 and 504,i. P. C. was taken against him and he was summoned to take trial thereunder. The contention of the accused is that he being a public servant, cognizance of offence could not be taken against him in the absence of the requisite sanction under section 197, Cr. P. C.

(2.) IT would be proper to briefly recapitulate the facts giving rise to this revision. On October 12, 1982 the complainant Daulat Rathi submitted a complaint in writing in the Court below stating therein that the accused was the Chairman of Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur. On October 10, 1982 the Trust invited the bidders to make bids in the auction of a site for the Cinema House. This site is known as Manji ka Hattha situate on Mandore Road, Jodhpur. A number of families reside on this site by raising Kattcha structures. The auction of the site was to result in the up-rooting of these persons. These dwellers approached the Janta Party. The complainant was a member of that party. A delegation was led of these dwellers by the complainant to prevail over the accused not to make the auction of the site. Many other office bearers of Janta Party were there in the delegation. When the complainant alongwith delegation approached the accused and requested him not to auction the site, the accused got infuriated and started abusing the former. The complainant raised protest against the behaviour of the accused. The accused got more annoyed and slapped the complainant. The accused also illegally detained the complainant in the tent raised at the site. Thereafter the other employees of the Trust dragged down the complainant and gave him kicks. The members of the delegation and the dwellers tried to intervene and rescue the complainant Slogans against the accused were raised by the mob. Meantime the City Magistrate and the Additional District Magistrate came there and they reduced the complainant. The learned Magistrate, after conducting an enquiry under Section 202, Cr. P. C. summoned the accused to take trial for offences under Sections 323 and 504, I. P. C. Agrrieved against this order of taking cognizance, the accused has come up in revision.

(3.) THE real base of contention between the parties is whether the accused can or cannot be prosecuted in absence of sanction under section 197, Cr. P. C. THE avowed object of section 197, Cr. P. C, is to guard the public servants against vexatious and frivolous criminal proceedings and thus to save them from harassment and humiliation which one faces in the trial of a criminal case. Now, in order to extend the protection under section 197, Cr. P. C. two conditions should be satisfied :- (1) the accused must be a public servant not removable his office save by or with the sanction of the State or Central Government and, (2) the offence was committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty.