Criminal Misc.-M No. 20878 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 20878 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 8.9.2011 Saroop Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P. S. Bajwa, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No. 7 dated 12.1.2010, registered under Section 170 IPC, Police Station, Jandiala, District Amritsar. The allegations against the petitioner in the FIR registered on the complaint of Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Rayia, District Amritsar is that though the petitioner was suspended as Panch vide letter dated 17.7.2009, but still in the application filed by him on 4.8.2009 to Tehsildar, Baba Bakala for demarcation of pond of Gram Panchayat, Bhorsi Rajputta, he identified himself as a Panch, whereas he was under suspension on that date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was elected as Panch of the Gram Panchayat, however, he was kept under suspension with the allegation that he had encroached upon the government land. He filed an application to Tehsildar, Baba Bakala for demarcation of land bearing khasra Nos. 191/1, 191/2 and 192 of village Bhorsi Rajputta. It is in this application that the petitioner mentioned that he is a Panch. On this application, the Tehsildar appointed a retired Kanungo for carrying out demarcation and the petitioner paid the requisite Criminal Misc.-M No. 20878 of 2010 [2] fee for the purpose. In fact, the petitioner had not availed of any undue benefit by mentioning himself to be a Panch as any land owner could file application for getting the land demarcated. The petitioner had also followed the procedure prescribed. Demarcation was carried out on payment of prescribed fee. Section 170 IPC provides that whoever pretends to hold any particular office as a public servant, knowing that he does not hold such office or falsely personates any other person holding such office, and in such assumed character does or attempts to do any act under colour of such office, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. He further submitted that ultimately finding the allegations against the petitioner regarding encroachment of the government property to be false, he was reinstated. In terms of the provisions of Section 20(4) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, suspension of the petitioner as a Panch merely debars him from participating in the meeting otherwise he remains a Panch. Placing reliance upon the judgments of this court in Jarnail Singh v. Dilbagh Singh, 1993(1) RCR (Criminal) 113 and Ajitinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 34, prayer is for quashing of the FIR. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that once the petitioner had been placed under suspension, he was no more the Panch. The petitioner having mentioned himself to be a Panch in the application to the Tehsildar for demarcation, offence under Section 170 IPC is clearly made out. However, he did not dispute the fact that any land owner other than a Panch is also entitled to file application to the Tehsildar for getting the land demarcated. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. Section 170 IPC provides that any person who pretends to hold any particular office as a public servant, knowing that he does not hold such office or falsely personates any other person holding such office, and in such assumed character does or attempts to do any act under colour of such office, is liable to be convicted for imprisonment for a period Criminal Misc.-M No. 20878 of 2010 [3] which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is an elected Panch. Offence under Section 170 IPC is sought to be made out against the petitioner with the allegation that though he had been suspended as Panch on 17.7.2009, however, thereafter he moved an application before the Tehsildar for carrying out demarcation of the land mentioning himself to be a Panch. It is not in dispute that any land owner could file such an application. There was no exemption from payment of any fee required for demarcation of land to the Panches. The petitioner paid the requisite fee as directed by the Tehsildar. He was, in fact, subsequently reinstated as Panch as the allegations against him on account of which he was suspended, could not be substantiated. This court in Ajitinder Singh's case (supra), while considering a prayer made by the petitioner therein for registration of a case against the private respondent therein under various provisions of Indian Penal Code, including Section 170 IPC, in the circumstances where the alleged accused even before his appointment as Chairman of the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board, used the official car for going from Chandigarh to Bhikhi in District Mansa and to Sardulgarh and Bathinda, where he also addressed public meetings, which were attended by officers of the District and also workers of political parties, this Court opined that merely attending some meetings and addressing general public does not amount to an act under the colour of office. If a person, who has been designated as Chairman discusses certain matters with district officials, no official act as such has been committed by him. Relevant paragraph 12 thereof is extracted below: “12. As already observed, there is nothing on records to show that the 5th respondent has done any act under the colour of the office. Mere attending some meetings and addressing general public does not amount to act under the colour of the office. If a person who has been designated as Chairman discusses with somebody like the Sub Divisional Magistrate or Deputy Commissioner and other people, it does not amount to Criminal Misc.-M No. 20878 of 2010 [4] dealing with the activity of the Marketing Board or with regard to participating in the activity of the Marketing Board. In my view, it does not amount of acting under the colour of the office. May be, having been appointed as Chairman of the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board, the 5th respondent wanted to acquaint himself with the functioning of the Board and also to streamline the functioning after assumption of the office. But it does not amount to offence as envisaged under Section 170 IPC. Mere assumption of a character without any attempt to commit any official act is not sufficient to attract Section 170 IPC. I am, therefore, of the opinion that Section 170 is not attracted.” In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner did not do any act in his official capacity as a Panch concerning Gram Panchayat after he was placed under suspension. He had merely filed an application to the Tehsildar for demarcation of land mentioning himself to be a Panch though he was under suspension on that day. He had paid the requisite fee for demarcation for which any other land owner was also entitled to apply. In view of my aforesaid discussion, in my opinion, no offence under Section 170 IPC is made out against the petitioner. The continuation of prosecution against the petitioner would certainly amount to mis-use of process of law. Accordingly, the impugned FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 8.9.2011 mk