GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS misc. petition u/s. 482 Cr. P. C. is directed against the order dt. 24. 8. 95 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali whereby he accepted the application of the respondents seeking the recall of the order of issuing process against them, and dropped the proceedings.
(2.) THE relevant facts are these : Dalpat Singh, petitioner filed a criminal complaint in the Court of CJM, Pali against Ashok Patni, Dy. S. P. , Pali, other police officials and one Chunnilal on 8. 2. 83. THE allegations were that Chunnital and others conspired and lodged a false report on 2. 1. 83 against one Manaklal whereupon F. I. R. No. 1/83 u/s. 447, 427 and 504 IPC was registered and as the complainant (petitioner) used to help Manaklal, the police officials, who had entered into criminal conspiracy with Chunnilal, asked the complainant petitioner to refrain from helping Manaklal. On telling by the petitioner that the police should not show personal interest in any matter, the police officials manhandled him, abused him and handcuffed him. It was further alleged that the police took the petitioner to the police station giving beating to him. On this complaint, statement of Dalpat Singh, petitioner was recorded u/s. 200 Cr. P. C. the complainant examined PW. 2 Ishwar Singh, PW. 3 Sumer Singh, PW. 4 Manaklal and PW. 5 Ranjit Singh u/s. 202 Cr. P. C. THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dt. 10. 8. 83 issued process against the respondents (accused) u/s. 323, 327, 341, 342, 355, 384, 504 and 109 IPC. After the respondents appeared in Court and evidence of two witnesses was recorded, the petitioners filed two applications one by Ashok Patni and other by other police officials stating that they were entitled to protection 197 Cr. P. C. and proceedings should be dropped against them. THE learned Magistrate by the impugned order accepted the applications of the respondents, and recalling the earlier order of issuing process dropped the proceedings against them. The contention of Mr. Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioners was that protection 197 Cr. P. C. was not available to respondents No. 3 to 6 as they are the officials, who are not removable save by or with the sanction of the State Government, and therefore, the order of the Magistrate qua these respondents is patently erroneous. As regards the case against Ashok Patni, he contended that there was no connection between his act and his duties as Dy. S. P. and hence he cannot claim protection u/s. 197 Cr. P. C. As against this Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Ashok Patni contended that as Circle Officer it was the duty of Ashok Patni to supervise the investigation; and therefore, there was direct connection between the duty and the alleged act of the petitioner. Mr. Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 argued that his client was investigating the case and if anything was done by him during the course of investigation cognizance could not be taken against him without the sanction of the State Government in view of the Government Notification S. O. 89 Dt. 31. 7. 74 whereby the protection of Section 197 Cr. P. C. was made available to all the police officials. The contention of learned P. P. was that in view of the decision of this Court rendered in Ramjas vs. State of Rajasthan (1) the police officials, other than Ashok Patni cannot claim protection under Section 197 Cr. P. C. under notification dt. 31. 7. 74.
(3.) I have considered the above arguments. In the case of Ramjas vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) after surveying the various rulings, I have taken the view that the notification S. O. 89 dt. 31. 7. 74 does not protect the police officials, who are not posted on the duty of maintenance of Public Order. The wordings of the notification are clear. It is only when a police official is charged with the duty of maintenance Public Order then he can claim protection under the Notification dated 31. 7. 74 issued under Sec. 197 (3), Cr. P. C. in the instant case, the facts are that the respondents No. 3 to 6 were involved in the investigation of the case registered under various Sections of IPC. The duty to investigate a criminal case flows from various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The investigation of a case obviously is related to the duties of maintenance of Law & Order. Since the police officials were discharging their duties in connection with the law and order, they cannot claim protection under Notification dated 31. 7. 74 issued u/s. 197 (3) Cr. P. C. The learned CJM has erred in dropping the proceedings against respondents No. 3 to 6 for want of sanction. However, the case of respondent Ashok Patni stands on different footing. He is the officer, who is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government. Therefore, protection of Section 197 (1) Cr. P. C. is available to him. Needless to say, when the Circle Officer supervises the investigation, his act is directly related to his duties as police officer. That being so, the process against Ashok Patni, Dy. S. P. could not be issued without the prior sanction of the State Government u/s. 197 (1) Cr. P. C. Consequently, the petition is partly allowed. While setting aside the order qua respondents No. 3 to 6. It is directed that the trial of respondents No. 3 to 6 shall proceed in accordance with law. The impugned order, so far as it relates to Ashok Patni, respondent, is maintained. . ;