MANJU RAJPAL D/O SHRI RAMESH CHAND RAJPAL, AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDENT OF WARD NO.31, CHANDNI CHOWK, CHURU (RAJ.) Vs. STATE OF RAJATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has laid this criminal misc petition under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C. imploring annulment of impugned Notice dated 9th of March 2013 (Annex.1), issued by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dungarpur (for short, 'learned trial Court').

(2.) The facts, apposite for the purpose of this petition, are that one Murtaza (plaintiff) instituted a civil suit for damages against State of Rajasthan complaining alleged illegal demolition of his three storied house, situated at Dungarpur, by District Administration, Dungarpur. The plaintiff has, inter alia, averred in the suit that District Administration has acted in a high handed manner throwing rule of law to winds and without adhering to proper procedure of law demolished his house on 21st of Aug., 2006. The suit was registered as Civil Original Suit No.21/2007. Upon service of summons, on behalf of defendant-State, an application is submitted stating therein with clarity and precision that removal/demolition of plaintiff's house was carried out, pursuant to the order passed in proceedings under Sections 133 and 134 Crimial P.C., by the District Magistrate concerned on the report of Tehsildar, Dungarpur. It is also averred in the application that as the entire demolition was carried out pursuant to a lawful order passed by Executive Magistrate in adherence of powers conferred under Sections 133 and 134 Crimial P.C., the said action cannot be made subject-matter of civil suit for claiming unliquidated damages. Precisely, State, as a defendant, by the aforesaid application, resisted the suit for damages by urging that it has not committed any civil wrong so that tortuous liability can be fastened on it. The application submitted on behalf of State did not find favour of the learned trial Court and consequently the same was rejected on 17th of March, 2008 with the specific observation that defendant-State can take shelter of this plea in its written statement. Later on, State filed its written statement denying all the allegations contained in plaint while reiterating averments contained in the application submitted on its behalf earlier. Trial in the suit proceeded and upon completion of trial, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff and awarded him damages to the tune of Rs. 26,00,000.00 along with 30% of the said amount, i.e. Rs. 7,80,000.00, and interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 21st of Aug., 2006.

(3.) The learned trial Court, while decreeing the suit, also initiated proceedings against petitioner and Tehsildar, Dugarpur under Sec. 340 Crimial P.C. and as a consequence thereof impugned notice has been issued to her. By the impugned notice, petitioner has been called upon to submit her explanation in respect of contemplated preliminary inquiry for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 166, 167, 181, 191/193, 192/193, 196, 199, 200 IPC. It is in that background, petitioner has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court to assail impugned notice and the proceedings pursuant thereto.