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)