- (1.) ON 6.2.2004, while admitting this criminal misc. petition this Court stayed further proceedings in Cr. Case No.97/2002, pending before the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh. The interim order aforesaid was confirmed by the Court on 17.9.2004. The matter then was adjourned on several occasions and on 11.3.2010, the Court while granting last opportunity to the counsel for the petitioner to argue the matter adjourned the case for 30.3.2010. It appears that for certain obvious reasons, the matter could not be taken up for hearing by the Court and today, on calling up the matter, a request is again made on behalf of the petitioner to adjourn hearing. I do not find any just reason to do so, as such, the request is rejected.
(2.) IN brief, facts of the case are that at the instance of one Shri Nandkishore, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 427, 420, 452, 380, 454, 114 and 120-B IPC. The Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh on 3.5.2002, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 427 and 451 IPC against the petitioner and two other persons. Being aggrieved by the order dated 3.5.2002, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh Camp at Sujangarh (Churu) and that came to be rejected on 18.11.2003. Hence, questioning the validity, correctness and propriety of the orders aforesaid, this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is preferred. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that an encroachment was made by Shri Nandkishore on public land and that was removed by the Municipal Officers, as such, whatever action taken was a part of their official duty, therefore, no cognizance could have been taken by the trial court without getting necessary sanction as per provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. It is asserted that the petitioner was a Chairman of the Municipal Board and therefore, she has been unnecessarily and falsely implicated in a criminal case. On examination of the orders impugned, it appears that the revision petitioner was present at the spot when certain breakage was made with the residential house of Shri Nandkishore. Such breakage was made without giving any advance notice to the occupier. Learned courts below reached at the conclusion that the action taken by the Municipal Authorities including the present petitioner was not a part of their official duty and as such, there was no need to get any sanction as per provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. The fact that whether the action taken by the petitioner and officers of the Municipal Board was beyond their official duty is required to be examined by recording evidence. On basis of available facts, it cannot be said that the act of the petitioner was not a part of her official duty and at the same time, it can also be not said that whatever action taken was a part of the official duty. As such, the finding given by the courts below that the action taken by the petitioner and other Municipal Authorities was not a part of their official duty is not proper. As already stated earlier, this issue is required to be adjudicated on basis of available evidence that is required to be recorded during the course of trial. In such circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this misc. petition by modifying the orders impugned to the extent those held that whatever action taken by the revision petitioner and other Municipal Officers was not a part of their official duty by substituting the same as that whether the action taken by the revision petitioner and other Municipal Authorities was a part of their official duty or not is required to be examined during the course of trial and shall be determined on basis of such evidence. No order as to costs. ;