JUDGMENT 1. - This petition has been moved under section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bali dated January 5, 1991 by which he has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 109 and 120B, I.P.C. against 13 accused petitioners. 2. The facts of the case giving rise to this petition may be summarised thus. On March 3, 1987, peon of the Gram Panchayat, Loonava (Panchayat Samiti, Bail) reported that the non-petitioner No. 2 Pratap has encroached over the land of the drain and was digging foundation there. The site was inspected by the members of the Gram Panchayat and report was found to be correct. The non-petitioner No. 2 and members of his family were requested not to raise construction there but with no avail. On March 14, 1987, the Sarpanch, Panchas and the members of the staff proceeded to the site along with the police for removing the said encroachment and the encroachment was removed. On November 24, 1987, the non- petitioner No. 2 Pratap filed a complaint in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bali. After recording his statements, it was sent to the police under section 202, Cr.P.C. The police gave report that no offence was committed by the accused-petitioner thereon, the complaint was dismissed by order dated November 29,1988. A revision petition was filed in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bali. The order was set aside on the ground that it contained no reason and the case was remanded. After remand the impugned order was passed. 3. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-petitioners that no cognizance could be taken against the accused-petitioners who are Sarpanch, Panchas and members of the staff in view of the provisions of Section 197, Cr.P.C. read with Sections 78 and 17(a), Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. He also contended that the complaint was barred under Section 79(1), Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. 4. Learned Counsel for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor duly supported the order under challenge. 5. He also contended that the complaint was barred under Section 79(1), Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. 4. Learned Counsel for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor duly supported the order under challenge. 5. Section 79(1), Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 runs as under: "(1) No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall be maintainable against any Panchayat or Nyaya Up Samiti or against any Sarpanch, Panch, chairman, member, officer or servant thereof or against any person acting in the direction of any such Panchayat, Nyaya Up Samiti, Sarpanch, Panch, chairman, member, officer or servant, in respect of any thing lawfully and in good faith done under this Act or any rule or bye-law made thereunder." In para No. 1 of the complaint it has clearly been stated that the complainant has put a wooden cabin on Barwa Road of village Loonava. It has also been averred in Para No. 2 of the complaint that Rs. 2,000/- were paid by the complainant to the Sarpanch for the regularisation of his possession. It is thus the admitted case that the complainant made encroachment over the land of the road. The Gram Panchayat, Loonava was empowered to remove the encroachment under Section 26 read with Section 24 of the Act. Thus the provisions of Section 79(1), Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 and Section 197, Cr.P.C. were attracted in this case. No cognizance could be taken. The order dated January 5, 1991 deserves to be quashed. 6. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is allowed. The order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bali dated January 5, 1991 taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 109 and 120 I.P.C. against the accused-petitioners is quashed.Petition allowed. *******