Criminal Misc. No.M-3777 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-3777 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.2.2009 Jarnail Singh ......Petitioner Versus Ashok Kumar and others .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Jarnail Singh-petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short) for setting aside order dated 11.10.2008 (Annexure P-4) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur and order dated 23.4.2007 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sangrur, vide which the complaint filed by the petitioner under Sections 465, 466, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code was dismissed. The case of the complainant, in brief, as noticed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sangrur in para 2 of his order is as under:- “Briefly averments made in the complaint are that complainant is owner in possession of land bearing Khata number 215, Khatauni Number 463 and Khasra Criminal Misc. No.M-3777 of 2009 (O&M) 2 No.106//41/0-14. The accused Nos.2 to 5 have filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the complainant (which is pending for adjudication in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division) Sangrur) in respect of some property by mentioning wrong boundaries and the court has restrained the complainant from dispossessing the plaintiff (accused Nos. 2 to 5) from that property. In that suit, accused Nos. 2 to 5 have specifically mentioned that they have no concern with the property of the complainant bearing Khasra No.41. It was alleged that accused Nos. 2 to 5 in connivance with accused No.1 Ashok Kumar Halka Patwari Sangrur got mentioned in the jamabandi against khasra number 106//41 (0-14) to the following effect: “The defendants hereby restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property illegally and forcibly during the pendency of the present suit.” The aforesaid injunction order was not passed regarding the property of the complainant, but the note was entered in the jamabandi by the accused in connivance with each other to create obstacles for the complainant in dealing with the property. Thus, the accused have committed offence of forgery and preparing Criminal Misc. No.M-3777 of 2009 (O&M) 3 a false document. Hence, the present Misc.application.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a suit had been filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 against the petitioner for permanent injunction. In the replication filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 (Annexure P-1), it had been specifically denied that the property dispute was comprised of killa No.106 // 41 (0-14). Respondent No.1 had made an entry in the jamabandi to the effect that the petitioner had been restrained from dispossessing the land bearing Khasra No. 41 (0-14). Learned counsel has further submitted that no prior sanction for prosecution was necessary qua respondent No.1 in the present case. He has placed reliance on Raghunath Anant Govilkar vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 1042. In the present case Uggar Sain, Mohinder Singh, Prem Srup and Surinder Kumar filed a suit for permanent injunction against Jarnail Singh restraining him from interfering in their peaceful possession. While disposing of the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Cr.P.C.(Annexure P-2), the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur restrained the defendant (present petitioner) from dispossessing the plaintiffs (respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in the present case) from the suit property illegally and forcibly during the pendency of the suit. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 had merely handed over the order passed by the Civil Court to the Patwari i.e. respondent No.1. Criminal Misc. No.M-3777 of 2009 (O&M) 4 Respondent No.1, on the other hand, had made an entry in the jamabandi pertaining to Khasra No.106 // 41 (0-14) regarding the order passed by the Civil Court. So far as respondent No.1 is concerned, he was acting in discharge of his official duty. Since no sanction for his (respondent No.1's) prosecution had been obtained by the petitioner, he could not be prosecuted. Section 197 Cr.P.C. is reproduced herein-below:- 197: Prosecution of judges and public servants- (1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction- (a) In the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government. (b) In the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the State, of the State Government. xx xxx xxx xxx Criminal Misc. No.M-3777 of 2009 (O&M) 5 It is a settled proposition of law that where any act or omission for which an accused has been discharged has reasonable connection with discharge of his official duty then applicability of Section 197 Cr.P.C. cannot be disputed. Section 197 Cr.P.C. does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission done by a public servant in service but restricts its scope of operation to only those acts or omissions which are done by a public servant in discharge of official duty. This has been so held by the Apex Court in Raghunath's case (Supra) relied upon by counsel for the petitioner. Consequently, the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner fails to advance his case as in the present case, respondent No.1 had made the entry in the jamabandi in exercise of his official duty and, hence, he cannot be prosecuted without getting necessary sanction for prosecution. When the impugned orders were passed, at that time there was no sanction for prosecution of respondent No.1. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur has rightly dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sangrur, dismissing the complaint though for different reasons. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 10, 2009 anita Criminal Misc. No.M-3777 of 2009 (O&M) 6