SOBHAG MAL JAIN, J - (1.) BY this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the accused wants that the proceedings pending against him in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur for the offence under section 166 I. P. C. be quashed.
(2.) A charge-sheet against the petitioner was filed in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur on the allegations that the petitioner, when he was a Superintendent of Police at Sirohi failed to obey the direction of law in not protecting Leela Kalwi of village Ajari and Nihal-chand Seni of Parsi Chawal. It was alleged that in May, 1968 Leela was forcibly taken to the palace of Maharaj Kumar Raghubir Singh at Sirohi, where he was asked by Maharaj Kumar Raghubir Singh to sell his land and when he declined he was beaten. It is alleged that the petitioner was present at that time. The prosecution allegations further are that Leela was, then, taken to the forest where his thumb impressions were obtained on some documents. ft is alleged that the petitioner actively helped Maharaj Kumar Raghubir Singh in the illegal eviction of Leela from his land. Another set of allegations are that Nihalchand Seni was taken to the palace at Sirohi on July 6, 1967 and was forced to put his signatures on a stamp paper renouncing his claim to his property. It is alleged that petitioner Guman Singh was present at that time and helped Maharaj Kumar Raghubir Singh in forcibly dis-possessing the said Shri Nihalchand Seni from 86 bighas of land. The complaint was filed on July 15, 1976. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the accused for the offence under section 166 I. P. C. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner has filed the present application in this Court for quashing the said proceedings. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor for the State. Mr. S. R. Singhi, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the complaint taken as a whole does not disclose, even prima facie, the offence under section 166 I. P. C. and as such the proceedings need to be quashed as it would be a case of mere harassment to the accused. The learned public prosecutor on the contrary urges that an offence under section 166 I. P. C. is clearly made out. To attract the provisions of section 166 the prosecution has to show that the accused being a public servant, knowingly disobeyed any direction of law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant. The prosecution has further to show that in doing so he intended to cause injury to any person. I have gone through the complaint filed against the petitioner. Read as a whole the complaint does not disclose as to which direction of law was disobeyed by the accused. The offence is alleged to have taken place in July, 1967 and May, 1968. Significantly no charge-sheet was filed against Maharaj Kumar Raghubir Singh, who on the allegations of the prosecution was the principal accused. Though the offence took place in 1967/1968, the complaint was filed as late as July 15, 1976 i. e. after nine years. Now more than 19 years have elapsed and far from advancing the cause of justice it would want it if proceedings are allowed to continue against the petitioner, more so when the ingredients of section 166 I. P. C. are not even prima facie disclosed against the accused. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the proceedings pending against the petitioner in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur deserve to be quashed. The proceedings relating to Case No. 156/77 State V. Guman Singh pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur are, accordingly, quashed. . ;