Criminal Misc. No.M-31308 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-31308 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.2.2009 R.N.Singla ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Vijay Kumar Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. R.N.Singla-petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short) challenging the order dated 1.7.2008 (Annexure P-1), whereby sanction for prosecution of respondent No.2 was declined. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he had built up his house at Chowk Jahanara Bagh, Jhajjar and was residing there with his family. On 6.12.1989, Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Jhajjar sent a letter to respondent No.2 that certain new shops were under construction on the land belonging to Public Works Department ('PWD” for short) and action be taken for removing the said construction. On 10.12.1989, at 11.00 a.m., in the absence of the petitioner, respondent No.2 along with labour came to the house of Criminal Misc. No.M-31308 of 2008 (O&M) 2 the petitioner and started demolishing the shops of the petitioner. The petitioner reached the spot and asked them to stop demolition work. However, the Southern wall of the shops was completely demolished illegally. No notice was ever issued to the petitioner. Vide order dated 1.7.2008 (Annexure P-1) sanction for prosecution of respondent No.2 under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was declined. Hence, the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order (Annexure P-1) has been passed without due application of mind and the same is liable to be dismissed. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Badrinath vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu and others, AIR 1986 Madras 3, wherein it was held that the High Court can direct the State Government to grant necessary sanction for prosecution to the petitioner. It was a case where prosecution was sought on account of defamation. A perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P-1) reveals that the letter dated 6.12.1989 was sent by Abhay Singh Yadav, the then SDO (Civil) Jhajjar to respondent No.2 that certain new shops were under construction on the crossing of Jahanara Road, Jhajjar on PWD land and necessary steps be taken for removing the said construction. The Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak had sent a copy of the said letter to Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R) Jhajjar for taking necessary action in the matter. Similarly, Superintending Engineer, Criminal Misc. No.M-31308 of 2008 (O&M) 3 Rohtak also directed the Executive Engineer, Jhajjar to take necessary action on letter dated 6.12.1989. Another latter dated 1.12.1989 was sent by Sub Divisional Engineer, PWD (B&R), Jhajjar to the petitioner that he was in unauthorized possession of PWD land to the extent of 4 ½ feet on the Rohtak Road. The petitioner was called upon to clarify his position. The petitioner was also informed that earlier also he had taken illegal possession of Government land and the same was later on got vacated. The Sub Divisional Engineer, PWD (B&R), Jhajjar had sent another letter dated 10.12.1989 to Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Jhajjar vide which the latter was requested to arrange for police help. The petitioner was in illegal possession and was not allowing the removal of the said unauthorized possession. Hence, police help was provided to PWD (B&R) authorities to remove the unauthorized construction of the petitioner on the Government land. The said facts were noticed by the Sanctioning Authority from the order dated 25.7.1991 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rohtak. The Sanctioning Authority in para 7 of its order has observed as under:- “Whereas, after considering all the facts, available records, sequence of events, the provisions of laws including the above stated judgments of the Apex Court, it becomes abundantly clear that unauthorized construction was demolished in compliance of the order of the authorities and after giving a notice and also in presence Criminal Misc. No.M-31308 of 2008 (O&M) 4 of the police to prevent any untoward happening while giving effect to lawful directions. It is also clear that in the absence of non compliance, the charge of dereliction of duties were very much likely to be invited by Sh.Aneja in the circumstances discussed above. The facts and circumstances also make it clear that Sh.Aneja, while acting in the manner as he so acted was acting in discharge of official duty under the lawful directions and without any intention of personal gains.” Thereafter, the Sanctioning Authority held that no ground to grant sanction of prosecution of respondent No.2 was made out. A perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P-1) passed by the authority concerned reveals that the same was passed after due application of mind. The concerned authority found that the unauthorized construction was demolished in compliance of order of the authorities in the presence of police, after giving notice to the petitioner. In these circumstances, the impugned order calls for no interference and this petition is dismissed . (SABINA) JUDGE February 10, 2009 anita