ORDER
P.C. Jain, J.
1. This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401, Cr. P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 27-11-1987 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali whereby he reversed the judgment dated 6-6-1985 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pali taking cognizance against non-petitioner No. 2.
2. The brief facts are that the complainant-petitioner filed a complaint against non-petitioner No. 2 along with some other persons alleging therein that he was the Khatedar tenant of agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 1304 measuring 3 bighas. In the year 1976, the complainant made certain improvements on the said agricultural land by putting stone slabs around the above land. It appears that the concerned Tehsildar initiated proceedings under Section 90-A and 91 of the Land Revenue act but the same were dropped on 3-8-1976 on the ground that putting of stone slabes was only an act of improvement. It was alleged by the petitioner that during the intervening period some stone slabs were broken and, therefore, he was refixing them on 18-11-1984. At that time, Kundanlal Patwari came on the spot and asked him to remove the stone slabs. He demanded illegal gratification from the petitioner and the petitioner refused to oblige him by meeting his illegal demand. It is alleged that said Patwari threatened him that he would report the matter to the S.H.O. and Tehsildar and will get the stone slabs removed. However, the Complainant refused to remove the stone slabs and insisted for a written order.
3. Thereafter, non-petitioner No. 2 also came on the site and asked the petitioner to remove the stone slabs but the petitioner resisted. Thereupon, non-petitioner No. 2 threatened her that if he would make obstruction, he would be sent behind the bars. When the complainant wanted to go to his house, the non-petitioner No. 2 and other Officers who were accompanying him, did not allow him to go to his house and he was compelled to sit in the Jeep and was brought to the Police Station. It is also alleged that the non-petitioners got some documents prepared and compelled him to sign.
4. The learned Magistrate examined the complainant and his witnesses and found that a prima facie case is made out against the accused- persons for the offences under Sections 447, 341 and 342, IPC. Therefore, vide his order dated 6-6- 1985, he took cognizance against the accused- petitioners for the aforesaid offences.
5. Aggrieved by the above order, the non- petitioner No. 2 filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Pali, who after examining the material on record came to the conclusion that the complainant was guilty of making encroachment over the Govt. land and therefore, proceedings under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act were initiated against him. He further held that the non-petitioner No. 2 being the Sub Divisional Officer went to the site and instructed the complainant to remove his encroachment. She went to the said agricultural land in the capacity of the Sub Divisional Officer and it fell within his official act which she was supposed to perform as a public servant. The complainant himself has admitted that the proceedings for the alleged encroachment were taken in respect of the above land. The proceedings were initiated by the Patwari and the Tehsildar also intervened and non- petitioner No. 2 went there to instruct the complainant personally to remove the encroachment. He, therefore, concluded that the non-petitioner discharged his duties as a public servant in the capacity of Sub Divisional Officer and the matter was a dispute relating to the land. Hence, the non-petitioner No. 2 could not have been prosecuted unless sanction under Section 197, Cr. P.C. was obtained. He, therefore, allowed the revision petition and set aside the impugned order dated 6-6-1985 passed by the learned Magistrate qua non-petitioner No. 2.
6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have very carefully gone through the record of the case.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it was not the official duty of the non-petitioner No. 2 to come to the site threaten the petitioner to send him behind the bars and compel him to sign papers prepared by her and other revenue officers. It was a blatant misuse of her official duties. She was, therefore, not entitled to claim protection under Section 197, Cr. P.C.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order of the learned Session Judge.
9. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. In B.P. Srivastava v. N.P. Mishra AIR 1970 SC 1661 : 1970 Cri LJ 1401, their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down the following guidelines for invoking the powers under Section 197, Cr. P.C. :
Section 197 is neither to be too narrowly construed nor too widely. It is not the duty which requires examination so much as the act because the official act can be performed both in the discharge of the official duty as well as in dereliction of it. There must be a reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of official duty. The act must fall within the scope and range of the official duties of the public servant concerned.
10. In adverting to the facts of the present case, it may be stated that admittedly the dispute related to the agricultural land of the complainant. The dispute was whether the complainant was within his right to place the stone slabs around his land on the ground that the above act amounted to making improvement. It appears that there was difference of opinion whether the above act amounted to making improvements. However, it clearly emerges that the was of opinion that the above act amounted to making encroachment. He, therefore, asked the complainant to remove the stone slabs. The complainant did not comply with the order of the Patwari. Eventually, the matter was reported to the higher authorities including non-petitioner No. 2. She herself went to the site and directed the petitioner to remove the stone slabs. Her act was, therefore, only to ask the petitioner to remove the stone slabs. There is no dispute about this fact that she being S.D.O. was competent to inspect the site and instruct the complainant to remove the encroachment.
11. There is no basis for the allegation that she was instrumental in preparing certain documents over which the complainant was compelled to put his signatures. There is no prima facie evidence on record to support this allegation.
12. In this view of the matter, I hold that the learned Session Judge has not committed any error in holding that the above act was done by non-petitioner No. 2 in her official capacity and she could not be prosecuted unless sanction under Section 197, Cr. P.C. was accorded.
13. In the result, I find no force in this revision and it is hereby dismissed.