Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1918  OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.9968/2011)

PHILOMENA DHANIN (DEAD) BY L.RS.           Appellant(s)

                    :VERSUS:

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.                  Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Heard  Mr.  Amit  George,  learned  counsel  in  

support  of  this  appeal,  Mr.  Ram  Naresh  Yadav,  

learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan and Mr.  

Rishabh Sancheti, learned counsel appearing for the  

contesting respondent No.3.  Leave granted.

2. The  appellant  herein  has  grievance  against  

respondent  No.3  who  is  the  Sarpanch  of  Village  

Dhanin,  District  Rajsamand  in  the  State  of  

Rajasthan. It is the case of the appellant that her  

restaurant was demolished by respondent No.3 and her  

husband the second respondent herein. Therefore, she  

initiated  necessary  proceedings  before  the

Page 2

2

Magistrate's  Court.  Respondent  Nos.2  &  3  filed  a  

petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal  

Procedure  before  the  Rajasthan  High  Court  being  

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.758 of 2007, for  

quashing  the  proceedings  initiated  before  the  

Magistrate's  Court,   contending  that  as  far  as  

respondent No.3 is concerned, the demolition was in  

discharge of the official duties of respondent No.3  

as a public servant and prior sanction of the State  

Government  was  to  be  obtained  and  therefore  she  

could not be prosecuted.  The High Court quashed the  

proceedings  as  against  respondent  No.3.  The  High  

Court, however, held that the matter will proceed  

against respondent No.2, husband of respondent No.3.  

3. Being aggrieved by that order passed by the  

High Court, this appeal has been filed.  Learned  

counsel  for  the  appellant  pointed  out  that  

protection  under  Section  197  of  Cr.P.C.  is  not  

available against illegal acts. It is available only  

to the public servant who cannot be removed from the  

office  except  with  prior  sanction  of  the  State  

Government. The respondent No.3 would not fall under  

this category.  

Page 3

3

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3  

contended that under the State Amendment to Section  

21 of the Indian Penal Code, a Sarpanch is to be  

considered as a public servant.  Counsel for the  

appellant on the other hand, pointed out that the  

removal of respondent No.3 can be done by passing a  

resolution in the Panchayat under Section 37 of the  

Rajasthan  Panchayats  Act.  That  being  so,  in  our  

view, the High Court erred in passing the order.  We  

set aside the order passed by the High Court.  The  

proceeding  arising out of FIR No.111 of 1997 under  

Sections 447, 336, 426 & 120 of the Indian Penal  

Code initiated by the appellant against respondent  

No.3 will be restored and decided on its own merits.  

The appeal is allowed accordingly.  

.........................J (H.L. GOKHALE)

...........................J (J. CHELAMESWAR)

New Delhi; November 11, 2013.