MAUJJAM ALI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On April 15, 1988 the petitioner filed a complaint against non-petitioner Nos. 2 to 13 and five unknown personnel of the R.A.C. with the allegation that he was the father and natural guardian of peer Ghulam Naseer who was the Sajjadanashin of the Durgah of Haji Najmuddin Sahib Parwana situate at Fatehpur and as such was in possession of and looking after the moveable and immovable properties of the said Durgah, that on March 29, 1988 when the complainant was away at Merta Road and Makrana he got the information that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Fatehpur alongwith a number of Police personnel and some other persons entered into the precincts of the said Durgah, broke the sealed locks placed on the rooms in the Durgah, dishonestly removed petitioner's belongings and other property kept in the room and placed their own sealed locks on the rooms. The learned Magistrate examined the complainant Under section 200 Cr.PC and his witnesses Under section 202 Cr.PC but refused to take cognizance of the offence under Sections 448, 380, 427, 147, 149 and 188 Penal Code alleged to have been committed by the non-petitioners and dismissed the complaint Under section 203 Cr.PC vide his impugned order dated July 6, 1988. Hence this petition Under section 397/401 IPC.

(2.) I heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record of the lower court.

(3.) On examination of the record of the lower court it is quite evident that a dispute regarding the office of Sajjada Nashin and the properties of the Durgah had already been pending for adjudication by the Civil Courts and it was under the orders of the Civil Courts for maintaining status quo and keep restraint in accordance with injunction orders the locks had been placed on certain rooms in the Durgah. It is also gathered that the S.D.M. and other police officers, who were made accused in the complaint, had simply placed some more locks on the sealed rooms. On such facts the learned Magistrate was fully justified in observing that if any act was done by the non-petitioners in disobedience of the orders of the court they may be proceeded against by that court according to law and that their conduct did not show the commission of any offence, alleged to have been committed by them. While passing an order either Under section 203 or 204 Cr.PC the learned Magistrate was required to consider all the relevant. facts and circumstances of case. Since the material placed before him clearly disclosed that if the version advanced by the complainant be considered at its face value it was quite evident that majority of the non-petitioners were public servants not liable to be prosecuted without proper sanction of the State Government or at least without the complaint of the court whose orders were alleged to have been disobeyed. In the fact and circumstances of the case the learned Magistrate did not err in dismissing the complaint Under section 203 Cr.PC.