S.S.GREWAL, J. - (1.) THIS petition, under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') relates to quashment of complaint filed by Mohinder Singh against the present petitioner as well as against Head Constable Sukhjinder Singh under sections 342, 347 and Section 409 read with Section 34 I.P.C., (Annexure P-2), letter (Annexure P-3) whereby, Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana informed the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class. Ludhiana, regarding the attachment of pay of A.S.I. Joginder Singh and letter (Annexure P-5) whereby the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class. Ludhiana had again requested the Senior Superintendent of Police. Ludhiana to attach the salary of A.S.I. Joginder Singh and Bead Constable Sukhjinder Singh under clause (a) or clause (c) or both of sub-section (4) of Section 83 of the Code.
(2.) IN brief, facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, as emerge from complaint (Annexure P-2) are, that the complainant, who, was a licensee of Indian made foreign liquor, was running L-2 vend under the name and style of M/s. Mohinder Singh and Co. at Overlock Road, Ludhiana, whereas Shri Kuldip Singh brother of the complainant, was running a L-2 vend under the name and style of M/s. Kuldip Singh and Co., Link Road, Ludhiana. Father of the complainant was also running L-2 vend under the name and style of M/s. Sardari Lal Makin and Co. at Sangeet Cinema Road, Ludhiana. Mool Raj and Inder Kumar were the salesman at firm M/s. Kuldip Singh and Co. L-2 vend, Link Road, Ludhiana. The time for running the liquor vend was from 10-00 A.M. to 10-00 P.M. It was further alleged that on 28-12-1984, the complainant went to the premises of firm M/s. Kuldip Singh and Co. for the collection of sale proceeds. After collecting the sale proceeds of the other two vends, at about 9-00 P.M. the complainant was taking the accounts of daily sale-proceeds from his salesmen Shri Mool Raj and Inder Kumar, when a customer Shri Keshav came to purchase liquor. In the meantime, A.S.I. Joginder Singh with Head Constable Sukhjinder Singh came to L-2 vend of M/s. Kuldip Singh and Co. and told the complainant, the salesmen and the customer that they were under arrest, as they had violated the orders of the district authorities by not closing the liquor shop at 8.00 P.M. A.S.I. Joginder Singh arrested the complainant along with aforesaid three persons and also took into possession about Rs. 19, 000/- and wrist watch from the possession of the complainant at the time of his arrest. The complainant told the A.S.I. and Head Constable that there was no such order for closing the shop at 8.00 P.M. and, that they had no authority to arrest them. The police officials, however, abused and obtained the signatures of the complainant as well as three others, on blank papers. Thereafter, the complainant and the aforesaid three persons were illegally and dishonestly arrested by the A.S.I. Joginder Singh under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code and all these persons including the complainant were illegally confined in order to extort money from the complainant. The complainant and other three persons were released on bail in the Police-station on the following day, without, producing them before the Magistrate. Amount of Rs. 19,000/- was not shown by the said A.S.I. in Jamatalashi and the said A.S.I had dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated the said amount for his own use. All these facts were brought to the notice of S.H.O. Division No. 6, Ludhiana, and, later on to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, and, later on to the higher authorities but no action was taken against the aforesaid police officials. It was further alleged that it was well within the knowledge of the police officials that there was no prohibitory orders for closing the vend at 8.00 P.M. in December, 1984. The learned counsel for the parties were heard.
(3.) ON behalf of the petitioner it was mainly contended that no cognizance against the police officials including the present petitioner can be taken under section 342, 347 and sections 409 read with section 34 I.P.C. as no prior sanction from the Government for the prosecution contemplated under sub-section 2 of section 197 of the Code has been obtained; that both the police officials had acted, or, purported to have acted in discharge of their officials duties, and, the learned Magistrate is not competent to take cognizance against the police officials.;