IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1626 of 2009 Date of decision : July 06, 2009 Sat Paul Kagra ....Petitioner versus C.K. Bali and another ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. SP Soi, Advocate for the petitioner L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) This is a revision petition by complainant Sat Paul Kagra. The petitioner filed complaint against respondents C.K.Bali and Harbhajan Singh Sub Inspector of Police, under sections 120-B, 182, 201, 343, 380 and 427 IPC. The petitioner alleged that he is tenant in property owned by one Prem Lata who failed to get it vacated despite filing of many ejectment petitions. She then agreed to sell the said property to the petitioner who thereafter filed suit for specific performance. Respondent No. 1 has obtained power of attorney from Prem Lata. Some ventilators are stated to have been removed by the respondent no.1 on 21.9.2007 from the said premises. Respondent No. 2 is said to have connived with respondent No. 1 and refused to record the statement of the wife of the petitioner and also refused to record statement of the Carpenter and rather recorded some false report at the instance of respondent no. 1. After recording of preliminary evidence, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar vide impugned order dated 17.4.2009 ordered summoning of respondent No. 1 for offences under sections 427 and 341 IPC and refused to summon respondent no. 2 for want of sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant has filed this revision petition for summoning respondent no. 2 as accused and for Criminal Revision No. 1626 of 2009 -2- summoning of respondent no. 1 for some additional offence as well. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent no. 2 is not an officer who is removable from his office by or with the sanction of the Government and therefore, section 197 Cr.P.C. is not applicable. The contention cannot be accepted because section 197 Cr.P.C. has been made applicable by State Government to all police officials by exercising power under section 197(3) Cr.P.C. Consequently, sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C. is required for prosecuting respondent no. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the acts of respondent no. 2 do not pertain to his official duty. The contention cannot be accepted. It is alleged in the complaint that respondent no. 1 managed to lodge false reports in connivance with respondent no. 2. Recording of any report by respondent no. 2 at the instance of respondent no. 1 could be only in exercise of official duty by respondent no. 2. It is also alleged that respondent no. 2 refused to perform his official duty by not recording the statements of petitioner's wife and Carpenter and by not getting the spot photographed. This act or omission of respondent no. 2 also relates to official discharge of duty as per version of the petitioner himself. Consequently, there is no infirmity in the impugned order of the learned Magistrate refusing to summon respondent no. 2 for want of sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C. As regards, respondent no. 1 it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that offence under section 380 IPC is also made out against respondent no. 1 as he removed ventilators from the premises in question. However, it is no where alleged in the complaint Annexure P/4 by the petitioner that the said ventilators had been got installed by petitioner-complainant and the same have been stolen by respondent no. 1. In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) July 06, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'