IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 974/2006 (Under Section 482 of the CrPC) Ram Sukh …….Applicant Versus State of Uttaranchal & Another ……Respondents Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, for the State/respondent no. 1. None for the respondent no. 2. 17th August, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. By way of this Criminal Miscellaneous Application, moved under Section 482 CrPC, the applicant has prayed for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 390/2004, Ram Sukh v. State of Uttaranchal & Others, under Section 147, 336, 353, 332 IPC, pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 2. The factual background relating to this case is that an incident occurred on 18.2.2003 in the city of Dehradun, for which an FIR was lodged on the same day. The FIR discloses that the applicant Ram Sukh, who is a Corporator in the Nagar Nigam, Dehradun, took some other persons, namely, Nanhe, Harun, Farukh, Yunus and about 50 others along with him to oppose the removing of encroachment made over the land of Nagar Nigam, Dehradun at the bank of local river which flows in the vicinity of residential colony Lohia Nagar and Mahboob colony. These persons, under the leadership and at the exhortion of the applicant Ram Sukh, pelted stones upon the officials of Nagar Nigam as well as upon the police officials, who were engaged in removing the said encroachment. This act of the applicant and his companions 2 caused injuries to Madan Gopal Singh, Inspector as well as Darshan Keshwal, an official of Nagar Nigam. Hence, an FIR was lodged. After investigation, the chargesheet was submitted against the applicant Ram Sukh and others for the offences as stated above. Hence, the instant petition. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the papers available on record. 4. It would be worth mentioning at the very outset that the applicant has not enclosed any papers of the criminal proceedings sought to be quashed. Copies of chargesheet, summoning order or any other proceedings of the trial court have not been enclosed with the petition. Even then, in the interest of justice, this Court considered the case of the applicant and the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant read the ingredients of Section 332, 353 & 336 IPC and tried to impress upon the Court that no offence under these sections is made out against the applicant Ram Sukh. On the other hand, learned Brief Holder has shown the case diary written by the Investigating Officer, wherein it has been recorded that in the said stone pelting incident, the police officials as well as the officials of Nagar Nigam suffered various injuries. 6. Another argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicant is that Ram Sukh, being a Corporator of Nagar Nigam, is a public servant and, therefore, prior sanction was required to prosecute him, but no such sanction as envisaged under Section 197 CrPC has been obtained by the prosecution to initiate the criminal proceedings against him. On this score also, this Court is unable to accept the 3 submission of the learned Counsel because the applicant Ram Sukh, being a member of the body of Nagar Nigam, is a public representative, he is not a public servant. Even otherwise, by any stretch of imagination, this act of Ram Sukh and his companions cannot be said to have reasonable nexus with his public duties. So, no sanction at all was required to be obtained for launching the criminal proceedings against the applicant Ram Sukh. Otherwise also, when the chargesheet has been submitted in the court after due investigation and no glaring or apparent error or irregularity could be pointed out in conducting the investigation, the powers under Section 482 CrPC, sought to be invoked, cannot be invoked by this Court as it will amount to abuse of the process of court. 7. For the foregoing reasons, this Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 CrPC is totally meritless and is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed accordingly. 8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court concerned enabling it to further proceed with the trial against the applicant. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 17.8.2011 Prabodh