Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) By way of the instant miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner has approached this court for challenging the order dated 19.09.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Tibbi, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No.419/2017, whereby the application preferred on behalf of the petitioner under Section 197 CrPC was rejected and cognizance was taken against him for the offences under Sections 166, 166-A and 167 IPC. The facts in brief are that the petitioner herein was elected and was functioning as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Khinaniya at the relevant point of time. The respondent No.2 complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner in the court below alleging inter alia that he and his family members were having old possession of few plots bearing Nos. B181 and B182 in the village Khinaniya and Pattas had been issued to them by the contemporary Sarpanch. In the year 1997, Ramrakh and others had taken illegal possession of the complainant's plots, which were attached by the SDM, Sangariya and SHO, Police Station Tibbi was appointed Receiver thereupon. The complainant filed a civil suit in relation to the same dispute, which was also decided in his favour. In compliance of the judgment and decree passed by the civil court, possession of the plot in question was handed over to the complainant. After the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Khinaniya, notices were served upon the complainant and his cousin, who owned the disputed plots, requiring them to show cause that they were raising construction on the plots in question without any lawful authority and thus, construction work be stopped immediately. Alleging that the notice issued by the Panchayat was totally illegal and malafide because the accused was well aware that measurement of the plots in question had been carried out and that the complainant was having a pattas thereof, but in spite of having such knowledge, the accused got served illegal notices upon the complainant and his relative. Before issuing the notice, the accused in the capacity of Sarpanch undertook proceedings for measurement and identification of the plots in question portraying that the pattas were issued of Jod Paytan land. The committee formed for this purpose undertook the requisite measurement etc. and came to a conclusion that the plots of the complainant party were not located on the Jod Paytan.
(2.) The complainant submitted a complaint to the Vikas Adhikari alleging that he was being harassed unnecessarily despite the conclusion of the lawfully formed committee regarding the pattas having been validly issued to the complainant party for the disputed plots. Thereafter on 26.08.2015, while the complainant was in the process of raising a Pakka wall on his pattasud plots, the accused reached at the site with unsocial elements and demolished the wall and took away the construction material without the consent and permission of the complainant. The complaint so lodged by the complainant in the court concerned was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC and FIR No.117/2015 was registered at the Police Station Talwada and investigation commenced. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 166, 166-A and 167 IPC with the conclusion that the Gram Panchayat Khinaniya was aware about the possession and pattas of the complainant, but despite that and in flagrant disregard to the order of the Vikas Adhikari, frivolous notices were issued to the complainant with the intention of annoying him and causing wrongful loss. The petitioner moved an application in the court of the learned Magistrate under Section 197 CrPC raising a plea that the allegations set out by the complainant in his complaint indicated that the acts complained were done by the accused petitioner in discharge of his official duties as a Sarpanch and thus, his prosecution could not be undertaken without securing a valid prosecution sanction as per Section 197 CrPC. The application so submitted by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 19.09.2017, which is assailed by the petitioner in the instant miscellaneous petition.
(3.) Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel representing the petitioner relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of P.K. Pradhan Vs. State of Sikkim, 2001 6 SCC 704 and this court's judgment in the case of Gurnam Kaur Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.,2017 Supreme 250 (Raj) and urged that ex facie the prosecution of the petitioner in this case is bad in the eye of law because the petitioner is public servant not removable from his post save with the permission of the State Government and as such, his prosecution for the acts done in purported discharge of his official duties cannot be undertaken without procuring a valid sanction as per Section 197 CrPC. He, thus, urged that the impugned order is bad in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside.;