Hemant Gupta 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 Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(4)/3(15)/3(5) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act at PS. 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 the agreement with the intention to defraud. This was allegedly done in collusion with the then executive officer of the Municipality, one Surender Kumar Mathur and "the concerned clerk and others", by enlarging the dimensions of the plot which have been sold to him with the intention to grab the land and house occupied by the complainant and her husband. The Khasra number is also alleged to have been changed from 1179/03 to 1143/04. This fact is stated to have come to the notice of the complainant only when they were served with a court notice when they were in physical possession of the plot with the house and the shop. Her husband is stated to have gone to Jaipur for treatment of cancer. The Accused persons are, thus, alleged to have committed the offences of fraudulently making a scheduled caste women, her cancer diagnosed husband and other family members homeless. It may be noted that Respondent No. 2 herein, Yogesh Acharya was not named in the FIR but, apparently, he is stated to be "the concerned clerk".
2. In pursuance of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed and charges were framed vide order dated 10.04.2012 against Megharam. Once again Respondent No. 2 was not named in the chargesheet but a reference was made to Megharam acting in collusion with "co-Accused persons".
3. The records placed before us do not reflect how Respondent No. 2 was exactly roped in, but suffice to say, Respondent No. 2 moved an application Under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the trial 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 ent........