M.M.S.BEDI, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has questioned the legality and propriety of order dated 17.4.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari dismissing the application filed by him for discharge in the criminal complaint (Suresh Kumar v. Partap Singh and others).
(2.) THE petitioner, admittedly is a retired Secretary of the Municipal Committee, Rewari. He was working as a Secretary in Municipal Committee, Bhiwani on 27.5.1992. The petitioner along with two others had been summoned to face trial vide summoning order dated 17.1.2004 for offences under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC. Respondent No. 1 Suresh Kumar had filed a complaint alleging that he was a tenant of Municipal Committee, Rewari in a shop. On the basis of a mutual agreement between Suresh Kumar and Partap Singh dated 27.5.1992 a compromise was sought to hand over the possession of the shop to Partap Singh. The petitioner was working as a Secretary of the Municipal Committee, Bhiwani up to 30.6.1992. He was transferred to Municipal Committee, Rewari on 1.7.1992. The agreement was allegedly counter signed by the petitioner without any other remarks by him. Suresh Kumar had, in his complaint, alleged that the petitioner had fraudulently prepared a false document and cheated him while working as a Secretary of the Municipal Committee, Bhiwani on 27.5.1992. The petitioner had moved an application for discharge on the ground that no sanction had been obtained under Section 197 Cr.P.C. to prosecute him and that he had joined as a secretary in Municipal Committee, Rewari on 1.7.1992 and under Rule 43 of the Haryana Municipal Business Bye-Laws, he had counter signed the agreement of Partap Singh and the complainant, during the course of performance of official duties. The complainant had voluntarily surrendered the possession of shop No. 154 to Partap Singh on or about 27.5.1992 and had not paid the rent of the shop after March 1992. He had filed the complaint after the expiry of 10 years without obtaining the sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is more than 71 years of age and at present he is a retired person. In view of State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Budhikota Subbarao, 1993(3) RCR(Cr.) 539, even a retired person is entitled to protection. He has also placed reliance on Rakesh Kumar Mishra v. State of Bihar and others, 2006(1) RCR(Criminal) 456 : 2006(1) Apex Criminal 175 : 2006(1) RCC 630 to contend that it is necessary to protect the public servants in discharge of their official duties and as per Section 197 Cr.P.C. no cognizance can be taken against the public servant regarding any act, which was done in discharge of official duties.;