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'