SUNIL KUMAR GARG,J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner -complainant against the judgment dated 29.11.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu in Criminal Revision No. 8A/2000 by which he allowed the revision petition filed by the accused respondents No. 2 to 4 and set aside the order dated 8.12.1999 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu in Criminal Case No. 586/99 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the accused respondents No. 2 to 4 for the offence Under Sections 147, 447, 379, 427, 365 I.P.C. on the protest petition filed by the complainant -petitioner.
(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances: On 12.2.1999, the complainant -petitioner filed a complaint before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu stating that land of the complainant, petitioner and others is situated in Khasra No. 923 measuring 38 bighas 8 biswas, village Rohi (Churu) and fencing of that land was being done by the complainant -petitioner and to protect that land, one Bahadur Singh was posted as Chowkidar. It was further stated in the complaint that in the night on 12.2.1999 at about 9.00 PM. accused respondents No. 2 to 4 and 20 -25 more persons entered the premises occupied by the complainant petitioner and they beat Chowkidar Bahadur Singh and kidnapped him and they removed the pattias and also removed fencing and took them after putting in the Tractor. The said complaint was sent by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the SHO Police Station, Kotwali, Churu and on that complaint, police chalked out regular F.I.R. No. 60/99 and started investigation. After investigation, police submitted F.R. No. 47/99 treating the matter as of civil nature. Thereafter, on 27.7.1999, the complainant petitioner filed a protest petition in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu. The said protest petition was treated as complaint and the statement of the complainant -petitioner Under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of his witnesses Under Section 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu vide order dated 8.12.1999 did not accept the F.R. submitted by the police and on the basis of the statements recorded by him Under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. he took cognizance against the accused respondents No. 2 to 4 for the offence Under Sections 147, 447, 379, 427 and 365 I.P.C. Aggrieved from the said order dated 8.12.1999 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu, the accused respondents No. 2 to 4 preferred a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Churu and the learned Sessions Judge. Churu through judgment dated 29.11.2000 allowed the revision of the accused respondents No. 2 to 4 and set aside the order of taking cognizance dated 8.12.1999 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate holding inter -alia that in this case for prosecuting the accused respondents No. 2 to 4. who are employees of Forest Department, sanction as provided Under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was must, as the act which was done by the accused respondents No. 2 to 4 was done in the discharge of their official duties. Aggrieved from the said judgment dated 29.11.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Churu, this revision petition has been filed by the complainant -petitioner. In this revision petition, the main contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the complainant -petitioner is that the act which was done by the accused respondents No. 2 to 4 in dispossessing the complainant -petitioner cannot be termed as discharging the official duty and therefore, the findings of the learned Sessions Judge that sanction as provided Under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was necessary, are erroneous one and they should be set aside.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the accused respondents No. 2 to 4 supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu.;