AMARESH KU.SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the lower Court.
(2.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 7.1.1988 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 75 of 1986. By the above mentioned order the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, discharged the petitioner of the offences under Sections 427 and 430 of the Indian but found a prima facie case to frame charge under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the facts as alleged by the prosecution do not constitute any of offence under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, in trial of the petitioner on charge under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code amounts to abuse of the process of the court and deserves to be quashed. The learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order.
(3.) ACCORDING to complaint filed by the non petitioner No. 2 the complainant's father owned agricultural lands which are irrigated by the water of Bhakhra canal. In a family settlement, the complainant was given 9 bighas of land. The petitioner was posted as Jiledar and according to allegations made in the complaint, the petitioner was entrusted with the duty of issuing slips authorising supply of water from the canal for irrigation of fields. The complainant (non -petitioner No. 2) repeatedly asked the petitioner to give him the slips authorising supply of canal water but the petitioner avoided the same on one pretext or the other. The complainant then approached the Executive Engineer, Hanumangarh. After inspection of the site the Executive Engineer directed the petitioner to issue slips for irrigation of the complainant's field but the petitioner did not supply the same. The complainant then appeared before the Executive Engineer again and the latter ordered the petitioner to issue the slips for irrigation of fields to the complainant. The order was not complied with by the petitioner. Therefore, the complainant (non -petitioner No. 2) filed the complaint.;