DATARAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has preferred this Criminal Misc. Petition aggrieved by order dtd. 31/8/2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Bharatpur, District Bharatpur, whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dtd. 21/5/2012 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Bharatpur, District Bharatpur, whereby he took cognizance against the petitioner under Ss. 323, 427 and 504 of IPC was affirmed.

(2.) It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was posted as S.D.M. in Bharatpur. On the date of alleged incident i.e. on 11/7/2011, petitioner was performing his duty as a public servant. Petitioner was posted as Commissioner, Municipal Council, Bharatpur. He removed the encroachment in pursuance of the directions of the High Court in a PIL. It is contended that Girdhari Lal had made certain encroachment, for removal of which, a team was constituted and the team visited the site on 4/7/2011. Girdhari Lal managed to create a mob and the encroachment could not be removed on that date. It is also contended that Girdhari Lal had filed civil suites but the same were dismissed by the Court vide judgment and order dtd. 25/10/2007 and 30/6/2011. Petitioner again alongwith his team went to remove the encroachment on 11/7/2011 and the encroachment was removed. After removal of the encroachment, when petitioner was in a public function, complainant's father alongwith mob attacked the petitioner and other Government employees, on which an FIR was lodged bearing No.545/2011. It is contended that to counterblast this FIR, complainant on the next date, lodged a complaint, wherein Court has taken cognizance against the nmS

(3.) It is also contended that petitioner is holding an important post in the Government. He was Commissioner, Municipal Council, Bharatpur and bound by the Rule of Law to discharge his duties and to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, he got the encroachment removed. He had worked in his official capacity. Hence, without obtaining sanction, Court could not have taken cognizance against the petitioner.