Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kewal Ram vs State And Anr on 16 August, 2022
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 3) [CRLMP-834/2018]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 834/2018
Kewal Ram S/o Sh. Taruram, By Caste Nayak, Resident Of
Monda, Gram Sewak And Secretary Panchyat Samiti Sri
Karanpur District Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan
2. Patram S/o Sh. Motiram, By Caste Nayak, R/o Village
Naggi Tehsil Sri Karanpur District Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 16/08/2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the order passed by this Court in the matter of Baldev Raj Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.851/2015) decided on 03.01.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Baldev Raj was the co-accused and was Patwari and facing the same allegations. The order dated 03.01.2018 reads as under:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner Baldev Raj who was at the relevant point of time posted as Patwari in the revenue village where the complainant resides, has approached this Court for challenging the order dated 26.3.2010 passed by ACJM, Srikaranpur in Cr.Case No.39/2007 whereby whilst discharging the petitioner from the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., charges were ordered to be (Downloaded on 17/08/2022 at 08:11:13 PM) (2 of 3) [CRLMP-834/2018] framed against him for the offences under Sections 420, 197, 198, 200 read with 120B and Section 167 I.P.C. The said order was affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Srikaranpur vide order dated 23.2.2012 passed in revision. By the very same order, charges were also ordered to be framed against the coaccused Vijay Kumar being the Sarpanch of the village at the relevant point of time. Vijay Kumar challenged these proceedings by filing a Misc. Petition No.976/2012 which was allowed by this Court on 18.11.2014 with the following observations:
"The petitioner was not found responsible by the learned trial Court for the offence of committing forgery. The highest allegation against the petitioner was that he sanctioned the mutation entry on the basis of fraudulent documents. The documents for entering mutation in the revenue records were placed before the Gram Panchayat after enquiry made by the concerned revenue officers. The Gram Panchayat took a resolution and sanctioned the disputed mutation entry. The law is settled that a mutation entry is a fiscal entry made for collecting government revenue and does not give rise to any property rights. Thus, definitely, the acts attributed to the petitioner Sarpanch were done by him in the bonafide discharge of his official functions. This Court in unequivocal terms held in the case of Gurbux Singh (supra) that even an act done bonafide but under a mistaken belief entitles a public servant to claim benefit of sanction.
As a consequence of the above discussion, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the petitioner's prosecution in this case is totally unwarranted as the same was instituted without procuring the mandatory prosecution sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and consequently, the order dated 26.3.2010 passed by the learned trial Court framing charges against the petitioner as modified by the learned revisional Court by its order dated 23.2.2012 both deserve to be quashed qua the petitioner only."
A Patwari is also entitled to protection against prosecution for acts done in discharge of official duty as has been held by this Court in the case of Kasam Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2016 (2) RcrC 681.
In this background, this Court is of the opinion that allowing prosecution of the petitioner to be continued when proceedings have been quashed qua the Sarpanch Vijay Kumar would be nothing short of gross abuse of process of law.
Resultantly, the misc. petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 26.3.2010 passed by ACJM, Srikaranpur in Cr.Case No.39/2007 as well (Downloaded on 17/08/2022 at 08:11:13 PM) (3 of 3) [CRLMP-834/2018] as the order dated 23.2.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Srikaranpur and all proceedings sought to be taken thereunder against the petitioners are hereby quashed.
Stay petition is disposed of."
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions but could not point out any difference between the allegations against the present petitioner and the Sarpanch and Patwari against whom the proceedings have already been quashed.
The present petitioner being a Gram Sewak has also entitled for protection against prosecution for acts done in discharge of official duty as has been held by this Court in the case of Kasam Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2016 (2) RcrC 681.
In view of the above, the misc. petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 26.03.2010 passed by learned ACJM, Srikaranpur in Cr. Case No.39/2007 as well as the order dated 23.02.2012 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikaranpur and all proceedings sought to be taken thereunder against the petitioner is hereby quashed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
72-/Jitender/Nirmala/-
(Downloaded on 17/08/2022 at 08:11:13 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)