GIRIDHAR MALAVIYA, J. ( 1 ) A. K. Rajvanshi, Nirmal Sharma, Mahabir Tyagi, Rati Ram, Dbarmvir, Khem chand. Smt. Raj Rani Pathak, Nanak chand. Radha Swami and Karan Singh have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 274 of 1986 in which these persons along with one D. S. P. Srivastava were sum mooed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad under Sections 295, 295-A, 379, 120-B, and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. All the applicants admittedly are employed in the Ordnance Factory, Murad Nagar, District-Ghaziabad. The summoned, persons had preferred Criminal Revision No. 87 of 1986 against the summoning order 3-3-1986 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad. The VIIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad who beard the said criminal revision No. 87 of 1986 allowed it in part inasmuch as he by his order dated 28-7-1986 set aside the summoning of Sri. D. S. P. Srivastava but maintained the summoning order against the present applicants. However the order indicates that the summoning under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code had not been upheld by the VIIth Addi. District and Sessions Judge while disposing of the said revision. ( 2 ) THE facts of this case are as follows: Ramesh Chandra Sharma, opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint before the Munsif, Ghaziabad on 24-1-1986 alleging therein that on 16. 1. 1986 the present applicants in league with D. S. P. Srivastava despite an injunction order not to interfere with the possession of said Ramesh Chandra Sharma had attacked him and had looted away his property after injuring his wife Surja Devi. It was alleged that since the applicants had attacked and entered the temple while the ladies including his wife were per forming kirtan etc. hence they were liable to be punished under Sections 295 and 295-A or the Indian Penal Code also. It was also asserted and proved later on that Ramesh Chandra Sharma had sent a written First Information Report relating to the said incident by registered post to the Superintendent of Police on 16-1-1986 itself. The-claim-of the complainant was that since the claim of the complainant was that since the police had not taken any action hence the complaint was filed. The-claim-of the complainant was that since the claim of the complainant was that since the police had not taken any action hence the complaint was filed. The Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code and recorded the statement of 13 other witnesses under Section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code. Thereafter the Magistrate by his order had summoned the applicants alongwith Sri D. S. P. Srivastava as stated above. ( 3 ) WHEN the applicants had challenged the summoning order before the court below in revision it was contended that the Magistrate had erred in taking cognizance of the matter in, view of the provisions of Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code. It was also urged that in view of the fact that regular suits for injunction had been filed previously by the complainant and one Jagannath Fakkar through whom the complainant claimed to, have derived the title of pujari of the temple and since the complainant and Jagannath Fakkar had failed in their cases they had designed to prevent dispossession of the complainant from Sheo Temple by filing this complaint mala fide to give colour to this case despite the fact that the complainant had been evicted from the temple as he had proved to be a security threat for the, Ordnance factory, within the campus of which the temple is situated of which the complainant was a pujari. ( 4 ) THE contention of the applicants, however, did not find favour with the learned VII Addi. District Sessions Judge who had heard the revision. According to him there was sufficient and prima facie evidence of the complainant and 13 other witnesses supporting the assertions made in the complaint coupled with the medical report showing injury on the person of Smt. Surja Devi, wife of the complainant for summoning the applicants. On the point of plea of Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the revisional court found that entering into the temple and plundering it by the applicants had nexus, with the discharge of their official duty and as such the applicants were not entitled to the protection under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 5 ) AFTER the present petition had been filed in the High Court the notice had been issued to opposite party including Ramesh Chandra Sharma, complainant. Counter and rejoinder affidavits were thereafter exchanged. ( 5 ) AFTER the present petition had been filed in the High Court the notice had been issued to opposite party including Ramesh Chandra Sharma, complainant. Counter and rejoinder affidavits were thereafter exchanged. ( 6 ) I have heard Sri S. P. Singh Raghav learned Counsel for the applicants as also Sri. S. S. Tyagi learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 Ramesh chandra Sharma at some length. ( 7 ) SRI. S. P. Singh Raghav contended that the applicants were protected under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code as their actions were not based on any personal animosity with the applicants, and as they had directions from their superiors to remove the complainant who was in unauthorised occupation of the temple and who had become a security risk for the military establishment. Sri S. S. Tyagi learned Counsel for the opposite party however stated that the applicants had neither asserted nor proved that the applicants were public servants removable only by the sanction of the Central Government and as such they could not claim the benefit of Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It will be relevant to examine this matter. ( 8 ) IN the petition the applicants in the array of parties had claimed to be residents of Estate, Ordnance Factory, Murad Nagar, District-Ghaziabad and Shri Nirmal Sharma applicant No. 2 who had filed the affidavit in support of the application claimed himself to be Officer Superintendent of the Ordnance Factory. All that has been asserted in paragraph 34 of the affidavit of Nirmal Sharma is the fact that the petitioners were employees of the Central Government and as such they could not be prosecuted unless sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code for their prosecution had been obtained from before. Thus it has nowhere been pleaded that the applicants are not removable from their office except by or with the sanction and order of the Central Government. Shri S. S. Tyagi, is, therefore, right in his submission that in the absence of such an assertion the applicants cannot claim the benefit of Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus it has nowhere been pleaded that the applicants are not removable from their office except by or with the sanction and order of the Central Government. Shri S. S. Tyagi, is, therefore, right in his submission that in the absence of such an assertion the applicants cannot claim the benefit of Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 9 ) SHRI S. S. Tyagi learned Counsel for the complainant contended that admittedly the complainant had filed Suit No. 228 of 1985 before Munsif, Ghaziabad for injunction with a prayer for restraining the military personnels from interfering in his possession in which on 28-3-1985 the Munsif had passed an order of interim injunction directing the parties to maintain status quo. The assertion of the complainant is that the fact that there was an injunction order goes to demonstrate that the Ordinance Factory people were out to dispossess the complainant from the temple and as the court had interfered in the suit, the Ordnance Factory people had taken the law in their own hands, and had come to forcibly remove the complainant, had assaulted the complainant and his wife and had looted away the property at a time when bhajan and kirtan in the temple was going on. The assertion of the complainant was that this fact having been asserted in the complaint and borne out from the statement of the complainant examined under Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code as also from the evidence of other witnesses examined under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a prima facie case for summoning was made out which being also supported by medical evidence of Smt. Surja Devi, this Court would not interfere in this matter under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 10 ) THE contention of Shri S. P. Singh Raghav, however is that the order of interim, injunction passed on 28-3-85 has been vacated by the Munsif on 28-3-85. This order of 28-3-85 has been annexed as Annexure- 7 to the affidavit in support of the application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It has also been asserted by Sri S. P. Singh Raghav learned Counsel for the applicants that although in Appeal No. 52 of 1985 filed by the complainant, the VIIth Addi. This order of 28-3-85 has been annexed as Annexure- 7 to the affidavit in support of the application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It has also been asserted by Sri S. P. Singh Raghav learned Counsel for the applicants that although in Appeal No. 52 of 1985 filed by the complainant, the VIIth Addi. District and Sessions Judge, on 14-1-1986 had remanded the matter yet the fact that there was no injunction order pending against the Ordnance Factory on 16-1-86 has been found as a fact by the order of Turd. Addi. Munsif, Ghaziabad dated 18-7-1986 in Misc. Case No. 1 of 1986 whereby the Munsif had dismissed an application 5-C moved by the complainant in the name of Shivji Maharaj for punishing the Ordnance Factory people under Order 39 Rule 2-A of Code of Civil Procedure for their allegedly disobeying the injunction order which had been passed on 28-3-85 to maintain the status quo. A copy of this order has also been annexed as Armexure-8 to the affidavit in support of the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicants also relied upon yet another order dated 31-3-1986 passed by Vth Addi. Civil Judge, Ghaziabad in Case No. 880 of 1985, Jagannath Fakkar v. D. S. P. Srivastava and anr. by which the prayer for injunction and assertion of Jagannath Fakkar that the complainant had been appointed by him to perform puja etc. , in the Shiv temple was negatived. Sri Raghav claims that the very fact that the Civil Court after hearing the parties did not deem it proper to issue an interim injunction goes to show that the court did not find a prima facie case to prevent dispossession of the complainant from the temple. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the applicants Sri Raghav that this also demonstrates that there being no injunction restraining the Ordnance Factory people, from dispossessing the complainant from Shiv Temple they were justified in evicting the complainant from the temple particularly as there were written reports and documents showing that otherwise there was a security risk for the Ordnance Factory. Learned Counsel asserts that the complainant had filed the present complaint solely with mala fide intentions for getting the officers of the Ordnance Factory intimated to prevent his eviction from the temple. Learned Counsel asserts that the complainant had filed the present complaint solely with mala fide intentions for getting the officers of the Ordnance Factory intimated to prevent his eviction from the temple. It is consequently claimed that the complaint filed by the complainant in the facts and circumstances enumerated above was nothing but an abuse of the process of law which has been mala fide resorted to by the complainant with the result that this Court would be justified in quashing the prosecution of the applicants on the basis of the said complaint. ( 11 ) SHRI S. S. Tyagi learned Counsel for the complainant has not challenged the genuineness of these orders of the Civil Courts mentioned above. This also means that the order dated 18-7-1986 (Annexure-8) which shows that there was no injunction order in existence on 16-1-86, has also become final which fact and cannot now be questioned. This being the position it goes without saying that the Ordnance Factory people had every right to dispossess the complainant from the temple as the competent Civil Courts had not found a prima facie case for restraining the Ordnance people to dispossess the complainant from the said temple. Apparently the complainant has been removed from the temple. It cannot be expected that the complainant would have willingly moved out of the temple after he had lost his battle in the Civil Court in this regard. Some force in removing the complainant from the temple could not, therefore, give it the shape of a crime. The injury on the person of Smt. Surja Devi merely indicates that she had suffered a minor fracture in her right thumb. Such an injury could be caused in the normal course also. It is true that 13 witnesses have deposed on the point that the Army personnels including the present applicant had gone to the temple on 16-1-1986 but a perusal of their statements only shows that the army personnel had not done anything else except to remove the belongings of the complainant from the place of the incident i. e. the temple. From the evidence on record it does not appear that intention of the applicants was either to commit theft or to injure or to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religious feelings. From the evidence on record it does not appear that intention of the applicants was either to commit theft or to injure or to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religious feelings. ( 12 ) SHRI S. S. Tyagi learned Counsel for the opposite party urged that even if the complainant had failed in the Civil Court in obtaining an injunction order it was not open for the applicants to have dispossessed the complainant by removing his belongings and that the applicants should have applied to the competent court under the provisions of the relevant Rent Control Law for ejectment of the complainant. I am afraid this plea of the complainant, after he lost in the Civil Court is not tenable. Once the Civil Court found that there was no case made out for restraining the Ordnance Factory people from removing the complainant from the temple in question, the Ordnance Factory people could not in any case be said to have committed some crime in removing the complainant from the temple. ( 13 ) SHRI Tyagi then asserted that the goods and articles belonging to the complainant which were removed by the Military personnels had not been given back to him. It is not for this Court to go into this aspect of the matter. However, it is always expected that if such a situation has arisen where some personal goods which belonged to the complainant have been removed by the applicants or the Ordnance Factory people, on the complainant making a suitable application to the officer-in-charge in that connection, the Ordnance Factory people will ensure its return to the cc m p Ia in ant. ( 14 ) IN view of what has been mentioned above this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed. The summoning order dated 3-3-1986 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad in case No. 274 of 1986 is hereby quashed. The order of the VIIth. Addi. District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad dated 29-7-86 in Criminal Revision No. 87 of 1986 so far as it upholds the summoning order of the Magistrate is also quashed. .