B.R.ARORA, J. - (1.) THIS miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated July 30, 1987 passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class Rajsamand, by which the learned Magistrate dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.
(2.) THE learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand, filed a complaint against the petitioner in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand. It was alleged in the complaint that in Criminal Case No. 51 of 1984 The State of Rajasthan v. Vijay Singh, warrant of Vijay Singh and notice to the accused Vijay Singh was sent to the petitioner for service on March 22, 1984, for service on Vijay Singh and the next date fixed in the case was April 2, 1984. This notice was sent through Mahipal Singh, but the accused did not return that notice and warrant either served or unserved. Again, on April 4, 1984, warrant and notice on Vijay Singh were sent to the accused for service and the accused, on April 15, 1984 made an entry regarding the receipt of these warrant and notice instead of April 4, 1984 and returned the warrant and notice. Thereupon, a notice was issued to the accused -petitioner on April 17, 1984, to show cause and the accused gave false reply to the Show Cause Notice. It was, therefore, mentioned that the petitioner has made a false report in order to save the accused Vijay Singh from the penalty. It was, therefore, prayed that the accused petitioner has, therefore, committed an offence under Sections 187 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of this complaint, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, by his order dated May 2, 1984, took cognizance against the petitioner and issued process. The petitioner, after putting -up his appearance, filed an application under Section 42 of the Police Act, mentioning therein that the accused is a public servant and as such no prosecution against the petitioner can be launched under Sections 187 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code unless and until the previous sanction, as required under Section 197(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is obtained against the petitioner. The Learned Magistrate, by his order dated July 30, 1987, rejected the application filed by the petitioner. It is against this order that the petitioner has filed this miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
(3.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that no prosecution against the petitioner under Sections 187 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code can be launched unless previous sanction, as required under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is obtained from the competent authority. As no previous sanction was obtained before launching the prosecution, the prosecution of the petitioner, therefore, deserves to be quashed. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has submitted that the act of the petitioner was not done in the official discharge or purported discharge of the official duties and, therefore, no previous sanction was necessary in the present case before filing a complaint or launching prosecution against the petitioner. I have considered the rival submissions made by rival parties.;