Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Narendra And Anr vs State And Anr on 9 April, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:17626] (1 of 4) [CRLMP-820/2024]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 820/2024
1. Karna Ram S/o Manduruparam, Aged About 44 Years, B/c
Jat R/o Chitana Tehsil Nokha Dist Bikaner
2. Ram Prashad S/o Dharu Ram, Aged About 52 Years, B/c
Jat R/o Kamanda Ki Dhani Marwar Mundwa Dist Nagaur
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Mohd Iqubal S/o Alimudeen, B/c Ansri Musalman R/o
Bajarwara P.s Kotwali Nagaur
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1612/2016
1. Narendra Choudhary, S/o Shri Dhanpat Singh, Inspector,
Municipal Council, Nagaur, R/o Indira Colony, Nagaur
2. Chandu Ram Changra, S/o Shri Suresh, Inspector, Municipal
Council, Nagaur, R/o Indra Colony, Nagaur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan
2. Mohd. Iqbal. S/o Alimuddin Ansari, R/o Bazarwada, Teshil
and District Nagaur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Matoria
Mr. Sanjay Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A.
Mr. Ravindra Singh, AGA
Mr. SD Purohit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order Order pronounced on : 09/04/2025 Order reserved on : 23/01/2025 (Downloaded on 15/04/2025 at 09:21:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:17626] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-820/2024] S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 820/2024
1. The petitioners have made challenge to the order dated 17.10.2014 passed by learned Magistrate whereby he took cognizance of offence under Section 504 and 427 of the IPC and process was issued against the petitioners.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioners are public servants and are working in the police department on the post of constable. They do not have any concern personally with the complainant or his property. On the day of incident they went on the spot on the directions of their officer and an entry to this effect is mentioned in the daily Rojnamcha diary. The superior officer directed them to reach on the spot to ensure maintenance of law and order. The allegations are that the petitioners along with some accused entered into a property in his possession and removed rubble stones from there and allegations of causing damage to a wall is also made. The matter was thoroughly investigated when the learned Magistrate sent it to Dy.S.P. under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. The inquiry report reveals that there was a drive for removal of encroachments under the instructions of administrative officers, municipality, and the police party was there to assist them and to ensure law and order situation. As a matter of fact, on 23.02.2012, a team headed by Executive Officer Municipality and Sub Divisional Officer reached the spot under instructions to District Collector and they were given a task to remove encroachment from public place. Police party was also called there to avoid public disorder. A protest was made on behalf of complainant party and there persons. It was alleged that the (Downloaded on 15/04/2025 at 09:21:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:17626] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-820/2024] complainant party formed an unlawful assembly and prevented the public servants from discharging their official duty and therefore a criminal case No.103/2012 was lodged against the respondent No.2 and some other persons. They were charge- sheeted and vide judgment dated 11.12.2024 they were convicted from committing offence under Section 147 and 336 read with 149 of the IPC.
3. In view of the above, prima facie no case is made out against the petitioners to book them for criminal prosecution because they had no direct relation with the dispute of complainant, otherwise also a protection under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is also available to them since they were performing their official duty and the act alleged was caused during discharge of the duty. Learned Magistrate did not take note of the shield available to the petitioners. In view of the above, the order dated 17.10.2014 is bad in the eye of law and therefore, liable to be and is hereby quashed and set aside.
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1612/2016
4. Constable Narendra Choudhary and Chandu Ram Changra, who are petitioners in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1612/2016 have nothing to do with the act alleged, they were also government employees and were public servants. The order dated 17.10.2014 passed by the learned CJM was further challenged before the Court of Session in Revision No.232/2015, who too did not consider the aspect that protection under Section 197 was also available to the petitioner and dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 29.02.2016. In the considered opinion of this (Downloaded on 15/04/2025 at 09:21:21 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:17626] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-820/2024] court both the orders dated 17.10.2014 and 29.02.2016 are not sustainable in the eye of law and are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioners are exonerated from the offences.
5. The miscellaneous petitions as well as the stay petitions are allowed in the above terms.
(FARJAND ALI),J 13-chhavi/-
(Downloaded on 15/04/2025 at 09:21:21 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)