ORDER
K.L. Shrivastava, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 24-4-84 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thandla in Criminal Case No. 0/83 whereby the petitioner’s complaint under Sections 120B, 175, 181, 182 and 500 IPC has been dismissed for want of sanction.
2. Non-applicants 1 to 3 are police officers,
3. According to the complaint, Popatkumar son of the complainant Dadamchand was the Secretary of the Thandla Vyapari Sangh’ and in the year 1980 the ‘Sangh’ had indulged in strike against police atrocities. Non-applicant No. 1 the Station House Officer had, therefore, become annoyed with the petitioner and his son and wanted to implicate him in some false case. Head Constable Madho Singh non-applicant No. 2 and Circle Inspector Mohammad Fazal Khan were then attached to the police station Thandla.
4. When a report under Section 406 IPC was received against the complainant at P.S. Thandla, he applied for anticipatory bail. The police then reported that no case was registered against him. Non-applicants Nos. 2 and 3 were mixed up with the non-applicant No. 1 in this matter. Subsequently crime was registered on the report and the petitioner was arrested in connection with the offence under Section 406 IPC. Thereby it is stated, he was defamed and he suffered loss in his business.
5. The learned trial Magistrate relying on the relevant notification held that cognizance of the offence could not be taken in the absence of sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. 1973(forshort’theCode)andinthis view, he dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code.
6. The point for consideration iswhether the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
7. The contention of the learned Counsel for the non-applicants is that as when no offence under Section 406 IPC was registered against the petitioner, it was truly reported to that effect and that there is no basis for the offence under Section 120B IPC. It is urged that what was done in the discharge of their duty is at the root of the complaint and in view of the notification issued under Section 197(3) of the Code (vide M.P. Law Times 1981-part II page 103) making the provision of Section 197(2) ibid applicable to the members of Class III and Class IV of M.P. Police Force and M.P. Special Armed Force, cognizance of the offence could not be taken except with the previous sanction of the State Government.
8. The contention of the petitioner’s learned Counsel is that from a perusal of the notification it cannot be said that it is one under Section 197(3) of the Code. It is further contended that assuming that the notification is under the said provision it does not extend the protection to the police officer when he is acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his other official duty not connected with the maintenance of public order. In this connection he has invited my attention to Chapter X of the Code as to what is meant by maintenance of public order and, tranquiolity.” That Chapter containing Sections 129 to 148 is under the caption ‘maintenance of public order and tranquillity and deals with unlawful assemblies, B. Public nuisances, C. Urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger, D. Disputes as to immovable property.
9. Section 197 of the Code is enacted for the protection of public servants Officers of higher ranks but not those in the lower strata are covered under Section 197(1) of the Code, subsection (2) enacted for the protection of the members of the Armed Forces of the Union of India is in these terms:
(2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.
Sub-section (3) reads thus:
(3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of subsection (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that sub-section will apply as if for the expression ‘Central Government’ occurring therein, the expression ‘State Government’ were substituted.
10. Read in this context of the relevant provisions, the conclusion is clear that the notification is intended to confer protection to Class III and Class IV servants of the police department who as members of the police force belong to the Class or category of the forces charged with the maintenance of the public order. It is not the intendment of the provision that the protection is available to them only when they are discharging their duties in connection with the maintenance of public order. It is rightly contended that while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duty they are entitled to the protection, by virtue of belonging to the class or category of the members of the forces charged with the maintenance of public order as such irrespective of the fact whether or not the act which gives rise to the prosecution is connected with maintenance of public order. It may be mentioned that the notification is expressing Under Section 197(3) of the Code. 10A. Learned Counsel for the non-applicants has further invited my attention to the fact that in view of the provision embodied in Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Cr. P.C. the petitioner has no locus standi to file complaint in respect of offences under Sections 181 and 182 of the IPC. I find that there is no prima facie case Under Section 120B of the IPC.
11. As a result of the foregoing discussion I. find that the view taken by the learned lower Court is substantially proper.
12. It has also to be pointed out that the revisional jurisdiction is not only limited in its scope but is also discretionary. In exercise of that jurisdiction the Court steps in to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice and not merely to correct errors of law of fact.
13. In the ultimate analysis I find that no interference with the impugned order in exercise of this Court’s revisional jurisdiction is called for.
14. In the result, the revision petition fails and is dismissed.