TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 1491
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngh Bule, Adv. Mr. Rishi Matoliya, AOR JUDGMENT SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. 1. Indra Devi, the appellant, is the complainant in FIR No.80 dated 23.02.2011 registered under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(4)/3(15)/3(5) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act at P.S. Kotwali, Distt. Barmer. It was alleged that she and her husband Bhanwar Lal purchased two plots in Khasra No.1179/03 located in Distt. Barmer. Out of these two plots, one plot was sold to one Megharam while another plot was sold to one Chetan Choudhary. In the plot purchased in the name of her husband, a residential house and shops are stated to have been made. Megharam is alleged to have tampered with and fabricated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... court stating that he was a public servant and what he did in respect of allotment of lease, that was executed in favour of Megharam, was done during the course of his official duty and thus he was entitled to protection under the aforementioned provision. He also sought to assail the chargesheet as the same had been filed without obtaining sanction of the competent authority under Section 197 of the CrPC. 4. The trial court dismissed the application vide order dated 10.08.2017, while noticing that Respondent No.2 had not been mentioned in the FIR. It was opined that it was the duty of Respondent No.2 to bring irregularities to the knowledge of the competent officers, i.e. Megharam had mentioned the wrong Khasra number in the lease but ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a special leave petition. The State has also filed an SLP. Leave was granted in both the matters. 6. The appellant contended before us that the involvement of Respondent No.2 only came to light during investigation. He had failed to bring the irregularities to the knowledge of his superiors which was instrumental in issuing the forged lease. Thus, he had conspired with his superiors in dishonestly concealing the forgery, and intentionally omitting mentioning the date of the proceedings on the order sheet. Such action of forging documents would not be considered as an act conducted in the course of his official duties and, thus Section 197 of the CrPC would not give protection to Respondent No.2. 7. On the other hand, Respondent No.2 e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondent No.2 herein, who was merely a Lower Division Clerk, could not be denied similar protection. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent relied upon the judgments of this Court in B. Saha & Ors. Vs. M.S. Kochar [(1979) 4 SCC 177] and State of Maharashtra Vs. Dr. Budhikota Subbarao [(1993) 3 SCC 339] to contend that Section 197 of the CrPC ought to be read in a liberal sense for grant of protection to the public servant with respect to actions, which though constitute an offence, are "directly and reasonably" connected with their official duties. 9. We have given our thought to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Section 197 of the CrPC seeks to protect an officer from unnecessary harassment, who is accused of an offence c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... factum of Respondent No.2 not being named in the FIR is not of much significance as the alleged role came to light later on. However, what is of significance is the role assigned to him in the alleged infraction, i.e. conspiring with his superiors. What emerges therefrom is that insofar as the processing of the papers was concerned, Surendra Kumar Mathur, the Executive Officer, had put his initials to the relevant papers which was held in discharge of his official duties. Not only that, Sandeep Mathur, who was part of the alleged transaction, was also similarly granted protection. The work which was assigned to Respondent No.2 pertained to the subject matter of allotment, regularisation, conversion of agricultural land and fell within his ....