JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 9.6.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in revision, whereby, the order dated 4.7.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) & Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Complaint No. 85/2007 taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Section 166 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act has been affirmed. 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of this misc. petition are that the petitioner at the relevant time was posted as the District Supply Officer, Hanumangarh. The respondent No. 2 happens to be the owner of the Hanumangarh Gas Agency and was an authorised distributor of LPG cylinders. The respondent No. 2 filed a complaint in the court of the learned Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) & Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh on 28.2.2007. The allegations levelled in the complaint were that the complainant belonged to Scheduled Caste and was the proprietor of the Hanumangarh Gas Agency which was authorised to distribute LPG cylinders in the local area. The complainant alleged that he was being hounded by the petitioner for a long period of time for providing gas cylinders to unauthorized persons close to the petitioner. When the complainant tried to resist this illegal attempt of the petitioner, he was threatened that his dealership will be put to risk if the instructions were not complied with. It was also alleged that on 18.9.2006, three gas cylinders were procured by the accused and on 2.12.2006 one gas cylinder was procured by his sub-ordinate after threatening the complainant with dire consequences. 3. The complainant further alleged that in order to harass him, he was given a show cause notice by the accused petitioner. It is also alleged that the accused petitioner demanded illegal gratification from the complainant on numerous occasions. The complainant further alleged that on 9.1.2007 his tractor trolley bearing No. HYEK-6512 which was being used for supply of the gas cylinders developed some mechanical problems, on which, a single gas cylinder was given to one Kishan Kumar Aaswani on the road side. The complainant further alleged that on 9.1.2007 his tractor trolley bearing No. HYEK-6512 which was being used for supply of the gas cylinders developed some mechanical problems, on which, a single gas cylinder was given to one Kishan Kumar Aaswani on the road side. It was further alleged that the complainant was carrying the business of the agency as per law yet the accused in a malafide fashion issued a notice to him regarding the supply of the gas cylinder on the road side despite knowing that the complainant's action was bonafide. It is further alleged that on 1.2.2007 at about 3.30 to 4.00 pm, he sent a truck bearing No. RJ-07 G 2022 to Hanumangarh Town so that further distribution of the gas cylinders could be facilitated through the hawkers and the gas cylinders could be delivered to the consumers at their respective homes. The complainant further alleged that the District Supply Officer, Hanumangarh seized the truck standing in-front of Shanti Nursing Home carrying 150 empty domestic gas cylinders and 6 filled commercial gas cylinders without any justification and for no good reasons. The employees of the complainant namely Sardari Lal Sethi and Bharat Bhushan requested the accused petitioner that the truck had been brought to Hanumangarh Town after due intimation. The complainant further alleged that he was called by Bharat Bhushan to the place where the truck had been seized. He reached there and requested the accused that the truck had been brought for lawful distribution of the gas cylinders under the directions of the accused and that the same should not be seized, but, the accused did not pay any heed to the complainant's request. Rather, he in order to insult the complainant at a public place hurled the words " Ms<+ uk rks gekjh ekax iwjh djrs gks] vkSj mij gesa dkuwu fl[kkrs gks " toward him. The complainant sent a complaint to the Food and Supply Minister and District Collector, Hanumangarh in this regard. The complainant further alleged that the act of the accused in abusing and obstructing him from distributing the gas cylinders as warranted by license amounted offences under Section 165-166 IPC and Section 3(i)(XI) of the SC/ST Act. The complainant sent a complaint to the Food and Supply Minister and District Collector, Hanumangarh in this regard. The complainant further alleged that the act of the accused in abusing and obstructing him from distributing the gas cylinders as warranted by license amounted offences under Section 165-166 IPC and Section 3(i)(XI) of the SC/ST Act. The complainant alleged that the accused is an influential man and the police officials of the Hanumangarh Town refused to register the complaint against the accused petitioner and, thus, he was forced to file the complaint in the court. 4. The complaint with the aforesaid allegations was filed in the court concerned on 28.2.2007 i.e. after nearly 27 days of the alleged occurrence. The complainant examined himself, Bharat Bhushan, Mahesh Kumar in support of the complaint. The complainant in his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. repeated almost all the allegations which were set out in the complaint. The complainant however in his statement did not allege that he went to the spot where the truck was seized. Bharat Bhushan in his statement recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. did not level any allegation that the complainant was given any abuses by the petitioner. Mahesh Kumar who was also examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. alleged that he went to the place where the seizure of the complainant's truck was being carried out and there the accused addressed the complainant in an abusive fashion and illegally seized the truck. 5. The trial court on the basis of the aforesaid complaint and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Section 166 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act and summoned the petitioner to face trial. The learned Magistrate held that the acts of the accused were not be covered in the category of the acts performed by a public servant in the discharge of his official duties and, thus, the accused was not entitled to get the benefit of Section 197 Cr.P.C. 6. The accused-petitioner challenged the order taking cognizance by way of filing a revision. Along with the revision, the documents of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 which were undertaken in relation to the seizure of the gas cylinders were filed on record. The order dated 7.3.2007 passed by the District Collector cum Distt. The accused-petitioner challenged the order taking cognizance by way of filing a revision. Along with the revision, the documents of proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 which were undertaken in relation to the seizure of the gas cylinders were filed on record. The order dated 7.3.2007 passed by the District Collector cum Distt. Magistrate, Hanumangarh was placed on record of the revisional court. The District Collector by the aforesaid order directed the confiscation of 8 filled gas cylinders and 92 empty cylinders on the ground that the complainant infringed the provisions of Liquid Petroleum Gas and Distribution Order, 2000. The application for confiscation was moved before the District Collector, Hanumangarh on 10.1.2007 i.e. much before filing of the impugned complaint. The said application was in relation to the seizure of the trolley carrying gas cylinders carried out on 9.1.2007. It may be mentioned here that the complainant has not placed on record any document pertaining to the seizure of his truck on 1.2.2007. When the complainant was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C., he has alleged that his truck No. RJ-07 G 2022 was seized by the petitioner illegally and without any justification on 2.2.2007. Significantly enough, he did not state about any incident of 1.2.2007. Be that as it may, the petitioner being aggrieved by the order taking cognizance filed a revision as mentioned above in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh and the learned revisional court has rejected the revision filed by the petitioner by the order dated 9.6.2011. 7. Now, the petitioner has approached this court by way of the instant misc. petition seeking quashing of the order taking cognizance and all other subsequent proceedings sought to be taken in pursuance thereof. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri R.C. Joshi submits that the proceedings of the complaint filed against the petitioner in this case are absolutely illegal and tantamount to gross abuse of the process of the court. He submits that the petitioner's prosecution in this case is impermissible because the requisite sanction to prosecute under Section 197 Cr.P.C. sanction has not been procured before taking cognizance against the petitioner. He further submits that the proceedings of the complaint have been initiated as a counter blast against the petitioner's action in seizing the gas cylinders of the complainant which were in the process of illegal distribution. He further submits that the proceedings of the complaint have been initiated as a counter blast against the petitioner's action in seizing the gas cylinders of the complainant which were in the process of illegal distribution. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kishor Roy v. Kamleshwar Pandey and Anr., reported in 2002 AIR SCW 3254 . He thus prays that the order taking cognizance against the petitioner and all other subsequent proceedings deserve to be quashed as the same amount to an abuse of the process of the court. 9. Per contra, learned counsel Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Shri Dron Kaushik vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that the accused petitioner acted much beyond the scope of his powers and also hurled abuses to the complainant at a place within public view and, thus, the order taking cognizance against the petitioner does not call for any interference by this Court. 10. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties at the bar, perused the orders impugned passed by the learned courts below as well as the record. 11. In the opinion of this Court, the proceedings which are being undertaken against the petitioner amount to a gross abuse of the process of the court. The petitioner in his capacity as the District Supply Officer, Hanumangarh had received complaints about the irregularities being committed by the complainant in the distribution of the gas cylinders. The petitioner took action and seized the complainant's trolley filled with gas cylinders which was being transported for illegal distribution. The seizure was carried out on 9.1.2007. The proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act were initiated against the complainant on 10.1.2007. Much later, the complainant has filed the instant complaint on 28.2.2007 in relation to an incident said to have taken place on 1.2.2007, wherein, allegedly the complainant's truck carrying gas cylinders was illegally seized. The allegations of the complainant in his complaint appear to be palpably false and concocted. The date of seizure of the truck has been mentioned in the complaint as 1.2.2007. The complainant in his deposition in the court has mentioned the date of the seizure to be 2.2.2007. The allegations of the complainant in his complaint appear to be palpably false and concocted. The date of seizure of the truck has been mentioned in the complaint as 1.2.2007. The complainant in his deposition in the court has mentioned the date of the seizure to be 2.2.2007. In the complaint, there is no allegation that Mahesh Kumar also accompanied the complainant when the complainant was allegedly abused by the petitioner. The complainant in his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. has also not levelled any such allegation that Mahesh Kumar was with him when the abuses were hurled by the petitioner to him. Bharat Bhushan, the other employee of the complainant who was allegedly present at the scene of occurrence has not stated in his statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. that the accused hurled any abuses to the complainant on that day. The complainant has alleged in the complaint that his truck was illegally seized on 1.2.2007 while in the statement, he has stated that the seizure was executed on 2.2.2007. No document pertaining to the seizure dated either 1.2.2007 or 2.2.2007 has been filed along with the complainant. In the letter/complaint which has been sent by the complainant to the District Collector, Hanumangarh on 23.2.2007, the date of the alleged illegal forcible detention of the truck No. RJ-07 G 2022 has been mentioned as 2.2.2007. Thus, there is a grave discrepancy in the highly belated version of the complainant as regards the date on which the incident is said to have taken place. Whilst in the complaint, the statements of Bharat Bhushan, the witness No. 2 and Mahesh Kumar, the witness No. 3, the date of incident has been mentioned as 1.2.2007. Contrary thereto, in the statement of the complainant himself recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the complaint/letter sent to the District Collector, Hanumangarh on 23.2.2007, the date of incident has been mentioned as 2.2.2007. Though, a minor discrepancy in the date of occurrence cannot be a ground to interfere in the order taking cognizance, but, this Court has to remain conscious of the fact that the prosecution which has been launched in this case is against a DSO who had conducted the seizure of the tractor trolley of the complainant which was being utilised for illegal supply of the gas cylinders. The seizure was executed on 9.1.2007. The seizure was executed on 9.1.2007. The proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act were initiated on 10.1.2007 and the complainant after a gross delay of over one and a half months filed the complaint against the petitioner. This delay obviously has been utilised for the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the petitioner. 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kishan Singh (D) through L.Rs. v. Gurpal Singh & Ors., reported in AIR 2010 SC 3624 considered the question of delay occasioned in filing of the complaint and held as below:- "21. Prompt and early reporting of the occurrence by the informant with all its vivid details gives an assurance regarding truth of its version. In case, there is some delay in filing the FIR, the complainant must give explanation for the same. Undoubtedly, delay in lodging the FIR does not make the complainant's case improbable when such delay is properly explained. However, deliberate delay in lodging the complaint is always fatal. [vide; Sahib Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1997 SC 3247 : (1997 AIR SCW 3306) . 22. In cases where there is a delay in lodging a FIR, the Court has to look for a plausible explanation for such delay. In absence of such an explanation, the delay may be fatal. The reason for quashing such proceedings may not be merely that the allegations were an after thought or had given a coloured version of events. In such cases the court should carefully examine the facts before it for the reason that a frustrated litigant who failed to succeed before the Civil Court may initiate criminal proceedings just to harass the other side with malafide intentions or the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the other party. Chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustrations by cheaply invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal court. The court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and prosecution. In; such a case, where an FIR is lodged clearly with a view to spite the other party because of a private and personal grudge and and to enmesh the other party in long and arduous criminal proceedings, the court may take a view that it amounts to an abuse of the process of law in the facts and circumstances of the case. (vide: Chandrapal Singh & Ors. v. Maharaj Singh & Anr., AIR 1982 SC 1238 ; State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604 : (1992 AIR SCW 237) ; G. Sagar Suri & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 754 ; and Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P. & Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 531 : AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 634 : 2008 AIR SCW 6901 )." 13. In the instant case, this Court has to seriously consider the effect of delay on the prosecution. The complainant was obviously chagrined because of the proceedings of confiscation initiated on 9.1.2007 against him in relation to the seizure of his tractor trolley and cylinders. The complainant has filed a complaint in reference to an incident dated 1.2.2007 alleging that the petitioner had illegally seized his truck. Even if, it is assumed that the complainant has filed the complaint in reference to the alleged illegal seizure said to have been effected on 1.2.2007, then too, the complaint is highly belated because it has been filed on 28.2.2007 i.e. after a delay of 27 days of the alleged occurrence. As has already been discussed above, the very substratum of the allegations of the complainant as regards the incident is totally false and concocted. Beside that, there is no witness who has supported the complainant's theory that he was abused by the petitioner at a place within public view on 2.2.2007. Undisputedly when the seizure of the complainant's trolley was carried out by the accused petitioner on 9.1.2007, he was acting in the discharge of his official duties and, as such, the petitioner who is a public servant cannot be prosecuted without procuring the sanction from the State Government as per Section 197 Cr.P.C. The upshot of the above discussion is that the misc. petition deserves to be allowed and the order taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Section 166 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act deserve to be quashed.Resultantly, the misc. petition is allowed. The order dated 9.6.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in revision, whereby, the order dated 4.7.2009 passed by the learned Addl. petition deserves to be allowed and the order taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Section 166 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act deserve to be quashed.Resultantly, the misc. petition is allowed. The order dated 9.6.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in revision, whereby, the order dated 4.7.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) & Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Complaint No. 85/2007 taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Section 166 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act and all other subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******