- (1.) THE petitioner filed a complaint before the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div) No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 8. 3. 2000, against the respondents No. 2 and 3, alleging offence under Sections 147, 148, 447, 427 and 379 IPC. it has been alleged that the petitioner is running a Chit-fund company, the office of which is situated in the Shop No. 10 and Chaat Market, Ram Niwas Garden, Jaipur. It has further been alleged in the complaint that respondents No. 2 and 3, along with their emplyees, demolished the constructions of the above shops of the petitioner and also took the articles with them, thus, causing loss to the petitioner not only of the property but also of his business as well. It has also been alleged that respondents No. 2 and 3 had not acted during the course of their official duty and the whole action was taken by the above respondents out of mala fides.
(2.) THE police, after investigation, submitted a Final Report, however, on a Protest Petition been filed by the petitioner, the trial court took cognizance against all the respondents in the present petition for the offence under Sections 143, 427, 447 and 379 IPC vide order dated 5. 12. 2000. Aggrieved by the order dated 5. 12. 2000, taking cognizance, the respondents preferred a revision petition before the appellate court. The revision petition was allowed by the appellate court vide order dated 7. 7. 2001, quashing the order dated 5. 12. 2000, taking cognizance. The order dated 7. 7. 2001 passed by the appellate court is under challenge in the present revision petition. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner was running his Chit-fund company in the above shops of Chaat Market in the Ram Niwas Garden, Jaipur. The respondents had no authority to demolish the constructions without prior notice. He has further submitted that since the respondents had not acted in their official capacity, sanction u/sec. 197 Cr. P. C. was not required to be obtained before cognizance been taken by the trial court. Mr. Gupta has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of "pk Pradhan vs. The State of Sikkim" (1), in case of "kn Shukla vs. Navnit Lal Manilal Bhatt & Anr. (2), and judgment of this court in the case of "bachan Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan" Mr. M. Rafiq, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has contended that all the respondents are government servants and are gazetted officers except respondent No. 5. The respondents, at the relevant time, have been working in the State Government Department, as such, prior sanction under Section 197 Cr. P. C. was essential. It has further been submitted by Mr. Rafiq that the State Government decided to remove all unauthorised constructions and encroachments from the government land, as such, in the city of Jaipur, Operation Pink City was also started. It was during the above operation that unauthorised constructions over the government land were identified and the same were removed accordingly. In the present matter also, the petitioner had unauthorisedly encroached upon two stalls of the Chaat Market, situated in the Ram Niwas Garden, the main public park of the city of Jaipur, and had also made constructions thereon without any permission. The whole action against the petitioner had teen taken strictly in accordance with law, after giving him due notice. Mr. Rafiq has further submitted that, against the alleged demolition of shops, the petitioner also submitted a writ petition before this Court, however, the same was dismissed. Even the writ petition filed by the petitioner, for directing the State authorities to issue licence for running Chit-fund schemes, has been dismissed by this Court and the application for issuing licence for running the Chit-fund schemes has also been rejected by the concerned authorities mainly on the ground of antecedents and criminal record of the petitioner. Mr. Rafiq has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of "gauri Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar & Anr. " (4), and in the case of "abdul Wahab Ansari vs. State of Bihar & Anr.
(3.) AFTER having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the order impugned in the present petition, the original record of the trial court as also the judgments cited at the Bar. As has come on record, two stalls alleged to be occupied by the petitioner in the Chaat Market, Ram Niwas Garden, Jaipur, were initially allotted to two persons namely; Bhanwar Singh and Nanag Ram. The stalls in the Chaat Market were allotted to different persons with licence to sell the eatable articles only. Both Bhanwar Singh and Nanag Ram were issued licences for selling ice cream and cold drinks in the above stalls. After some time, both the persons left the place and the petitioner, somehow, not only occupied the stalls but made certain constructions also and opened the office of Chit-fund company without any authority or permission. It has further come on record that the authorities of the garden had been sending regular complaints in regard to unauthorised occupation and construction made by the petitioner to the higher authorities. In a public interest litigation, in regard to maintenance of Ram Niwas Garden, this Court issued directions to the State Government to remove all unauthorised constructions from the garden and also shift the Chaat Market to other appropriate place outside the garden. ;