Allowed

Dataram v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajasthan HC14 Aug 2019CRLMP/3701/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition and quashed proceedings and orders against a Commissioner of Municipal Council who removed encroachments. Holding the act was in public duty, the Court ruled Section 197 Cr.P.C. sanction was mandatory.

What did the court decide?

Criminal miscellaneous petition allowed; orders passed by courts below and pending proceedings are quashed.

Dataram Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3701/2013

¶3

Dataram S/o Swaroopa Ram, aged about 47 years, by caste Jatav, R/o Town Chhekuriya Basti, Police Station Rajakheda, District Dholpur, Raj.

¶4

----Accused-Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan through PP.

¶7

Devendra Prasad S/o Girdhari Lal, by caste Brahmin, R/o B- Narayan Gate, Police Station Mathura Gate, Bharatpur, District Bharatpur, Raj.

¶8

	----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Rajneesh Gupta.
For Complainant(s)	: Mr. Anshul Sharma.
For State	: Mr. Arvind Bhadu, PP.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶10

Order

¶11

14/08/2019

¶12

Petitioner has preferred this Criminal Misc. Petition aggrieved by order dated 31.08.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Bharatpur, District Bharatpur, whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 21.05.2012 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Bharatpur, District Bharatpur, whereby he took cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 323, 427 & 504 of IPC was affirmed.

¶13

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was posted as S.D.M. in Bharatpur. On the date of alleged incident i.e. on 11.07.2011, petitioner was performing his duty as a public servant. Petitioner was posted as Commissioner, Municipal Council, Bharatpur. He removed the encroachment in pursuance of the

¶14

(2 of 4) [CRLMP-3701/2013]

¶15

directions of the High Court in a PIL . It is contended that Girdhari Lal had made certain encroachment, for removal of which, a team was constituted and the team visited the site on 04.07.2011. Girdhari Lal managed to create a mob and the encroachment could not be removed on that date. It is also contended that Girdhari Lal had filed civil suites but the same were dismissed by the Court vide judgment and order dated 25.10.2007 and 30.06.2011. Petitioner again alongwith his team went to remove the encroachment on 11.07.2011 and the encroachment was removed. After removal of the encroachment, when petitioner was in a public function, complainant’s father alongwith mob attacked the petitioner and other Government employees, on which an FIR was lodged bearing No.545/2011. It is contended that to counterblast this FIR, complainant on the next date, lodged a complaint, wherein Court has taken cognizance against the petitioner.

¶16

It is also contended that petitioner is holding an important post in the Government. He was Commissioner, Municipal Council, Bharatpur and bound by the Rule of Law to discharge his duties and to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, he got the encroachment removed. He had worked in his official capacity. Hence, without obtaining sanction, Court could not have taken cognizance against the petitioner.

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on “Anjani Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Anr. 2008(2) Crimes 202 (SC)” . 5. Counsel for the complainant has opposed the misc. petition. It is contended that petitioner has prior to the date of offence removed an unauthorized construction. He was still insisting on breaking the shop of complainant. Petitioner has exceeded the

¶18

(3 of 4)

¶19

[CRLMP-3701/2013]

¶20

powers vested in him and has abused the complainant and has thrown his cart.

¶21

I have considered the contentions. 7. Complainant has not produced any document before the Court below to establish that he was having a valid license to run a shop. In his complaint itself, he has mentioned that his stairs were earlier broken by the petitioner and on that day, his machine was pushed down by the petitioner. Petitioner is a senior officer of the rank of S.D.M., who was working as a Commissioner, Municipal Council, Bharatpur and was bound to perform his duty, more particularly, when an order was passed in PIL by the High Court, for removing encroachments. Petitioner earlier went to the spot but members of a particular political party formed an unlawful assembly and stopped him from performing his duty on 04.07.2011. Thereafter, petitioner again went to the spot and removed the encroachment.

¶22

Apex Court in Anjani Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (Supra) has observed that when same act is done in official duty, Section 197 of Cr.P.C. would come in play. The ultimate justification for the protection conferred by Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is the public interest in seeing that official acts do not lead to needless or vexatious prosecution.

¶23

Complainant is not having valid license to run a shop. Petitioner prior to lodging of complaint lodged an FIR against the encroachers who after removal of encroachments tried to attack the Petitioner and Government staff. Present complaint is lodged on the next date as a counterblast to the proceedings initiated by the petitioner for removal of encroachment. Continuation of proceedings in such a case would hamper administration of justice

¶24

(4 of 4)

¶25

[CRLMP-3701/2013]

¶26

and would encourage encroachers of public land. Since, the act was done in performance of public duty, sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. was a pre-requisite for taking cognizance against the petitioner.

¶27

In view of the same, the continuation of proceedings would tantamount abuse of process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice, senior officers who removed5 encroachment from public land in compliance of Court orders needs to be protected by the Court. Hence, misc. petition is allowed. Orders passed by the Courts below as well as proceedings pending before the Court below are quashed.

¶28

Stay application stands disposed.

¶29

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶30

CHANDAN /1

Dataram v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dataram v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surajmal Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Gyan Singh and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Sultan Singh Meena and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through P.P. and Anr.

Prem Chand Raghuvanshi Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Hari Kishan and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Guljhari Lal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.