G. N. Ray, J. - (1.) Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The order of the Bombay High Court (Aurgangabad Bench) dated September 10, 1996 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 414 of 1993 and Criminal Revision Application No. 16 of 1994, is impugned in these appeals. It will be appropriate at this stage to indicate in brief the background facts:- (a) the appellant, at material point of time, was the President of the Jalgaon Municipality. The said Jalgaon Municipality took a decision to demolish the unauthorised encroachment (tapri). On the basis of such decision of the Municipality, the unit of Anti Encroachment Department of Municipality had gone to demolish the unauthorised encroached construction on July 3, 1993. One Shri Sita Ram alias Baban Baheti was also one of the Councillors of Jalgaon Municipality. The said Councillor, however, remained present at the site and tried to stop the attempt of the Municipality to demolish the unauthorised tapri. The respondent No. 1, Shri Pandey Ajay Bhushan, was Collector and District Magistrate of Jalgaon and respondent No. 2 Shri Dilip G. Shrirao, was Additional Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon, respondent No. 3, Shri Prakash Mahajan, was Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalgaon, and respondent No. 4, Shri D. S. Jog was Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon, at the relevant time. The said respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were personally present at the site and prevented the staff of the Municipality to demolish the tapri. (b) The appellant was away from Jalgaon and having returned to Jalgaon in the evening, came to know that the respondents were not allowing the demolition of the unauthorised tapri. The appellant went to the spot and protested against the said action of the respondent in preventing the Municipality staff from discharging their statutory obligation to demolish unauthorised construction. The respondents, however, did not accede to the protest and persuasion of the appellant. On the contrary, the respondents physically assaulted the appellant, his driver and some other including the Councillors present at the spot. It has been alleged by the appellant that the respondent No. 4 put a stick on the chest of the appellant and gave a violent push. The respondent No. 2 caught hold of the neck of the appellant and threatened him with his revolver. The respondent No. 3 had given a stick blow on the person of the appellant. The respondent No. 1 also kicked and abused him. The appellant and his supporters including the driver and some of the Councillors sustained injuries on account of the said high handed action of the respondents. (c) On the next day i.e. on July 4, 1993, the respondent No. 3 issued prohibitory orders under Section 144 of Criminal Procedure Code by declaring that no demolition work could be done till July 20, 1993. On July 6, 1993 respondents issued an order suspending the action of the Municipality in removing the encroachment. On the same day, another order was issued by the respondents to the effect that no force would be used by the Municipality. (d) The Jalgaon Municipality challenged the prohibitory orders issued under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. by filing a writ petition before Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court being Writ Petition No. 261 of 1993 on July 7, 1993. Such writ petition was, however, withdrawn on July 8, 1993. On July 18, 1993, the appellant filed three writ petitions being Writ Petitions Nos. 2149, 2150 and 2151 of 1993 seeking various reliefs against certain actions of the State Government. Writ Petition No. 2149 of 1993 was filed by the appellant challenging the order restraining the Municipality from using any force in removing the unauthorised construction. Writ Petition No. 2151 of 1993 was filed for prohibiting the State Government from issuing any order of supersession of the Jalgaon Municipality. Such writ petition was filed because the appellant and other Councillors had apprehended that on account of political vendetta, the persons in power would invoke action of superseding the Jalgaon Municipality. (e) The appellant lodged a criminal complaint on July 19, 1993 being Regular C.C. No. 194 of 1993 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon against the said respondents under Sections 353, 332, 323, 307, 504 and 506 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. The appellant examined himself as complainant on July 31, 1993. The trial Court directed the appellant to produce his witnesses on August 4, 1993. On August 4, 1993 the State Government issued a letter in view of which the Writ Petitions Nos. 2149, 2150 and 2151 of 1993 became infructuous and the High Court disposed of the said writ petitions by order dated August 3, 1993. (f) The appellant examined 7 witnesses in support of his complaint. The deposition of the witnesses examined expressly disclosed cognizable offence committed by the said respondents. The trial Court, however, discharged the respondent No. 4 on the ground of lack of sanction but issued processes against respondents Nos. 1 to 3. The trial Court also dropped the charge under Section 307, IPC. The respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 moved a Criminal Writ Petition No. 414 of 1993 before the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court challenging the order issuing process against them, but without disposing of such writ petition, by the order dated February 10, 1994, the High Court gave liberty to the said respondents to move applications before the trial Court for recalling the order issuing process against them. (g) The respondents Nos. 1 to 3 thereafter moved an application before the trial Court for recalling of the order of issuance of process. Such application was, however, dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated April 12, 1994. The appellant also preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 16 of 1994 before the High Court challenging the order of the trial Court dated September 8, 1993 by which the complaint against respondent No. 4 was dismissed on the ground of lack of sanction. The said Criminal Revisional Application No. 16 of 1994 was tagged with the Criminal Writ Petition No. 414 of 1993. By the impugned order dated September 10, 1996, the writ petition filed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 was allowed and the Criminal Revisional Application filed by the appellant was dismissed.
(3.) Mr. Kapil Sibal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, has contended that the impugned order of the High Court dated September 10, 1996 has not only resulted in manifest injustice meted out to the appellant but the same is patently illegal, improper and unjustified. Mr. Sibal has contended that the law is well settled about the scope of supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code and this Court has clearly indicated that such jurisdiction is extremely circumscribed.;