AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Nuhianwali, District Sirsa, has approached this Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing the complaint filed by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer (second respondent) to the Sub Divisional Officer (third respondent) for issue of search warrants and also for quashing the search war rants issued by the third respondent.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner was sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Nuhianwali from 1987 to 1991 and in the elections held in 1991 the fourth respondent herein was elected as the Sarpanch. The petitioner and the members of the Gram panchayat found some goods of the Gram Panchayat in bad condition and beyond the possibility 6f any repair and, therefore, resolved on 31.10.1991 that they should be sold in auction (annexure P lIT) The auction was fixed on 9.11.1991 with the information to the second respondent. But the second respondent did not attend the auction. It was felt not desirable to postpone the auction and, Therefore, the goods were sold in auction The present Sarpanch namely, the fourth respondent, Prevailed upon the second-respondent to issue d notice (annexure P- 2/T) on 27.7.92 wherein false allegations have been levelled against the petitioner, even stating that some goods were auctioned after the petitioner ceased to be Sarpanch. On 18.8.1992 the second respondent served another notice on the petitioner (annexure P - 3 I T) in which only seven items were mentioned. Nothing was mentioned about the items mentioned in the list attached with the previous notice (annexure P-2. The allegations found in this notice are also false. There is an endorsement on this notice requesting the Sub Divisional Officer (third respondent) to issue search warrants against the petitioner so .that with the police help the goods mentioned in the notice could be recovered. It is learnt that third respondent without serving any show-cause notice to the petitioner and without enquiry into the matters issued search warrants against the petitioner, which is against law.

(3.) The petitioner handed over charge of the Panchayat to the fourth - respondent immediately on his election. There is no description by mark of identification on the articles. The articles mentioned in Annexures P - 2 and P - 3 are found normally in every personTs house. There is great delay in issuing the Annexures P- 2 and P - 3.