HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3709/2019 Ramniwas Choudhary S/o Shri Mukkharam, aged about 56 Years, R/o Sirohi, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar. ----Complainant-Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through PP. 2. Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Girdhari Lal, R/o Dhingal, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu, Presently Posted As A.P.F., R.P.F. Post, Jaipur. 3. Laxman Gour S/o Shri Trilok Chand Sharma, R/o Badgaon, Police Station Narnaul, District Mahendragarh, Haryana, Presently Posted As S.I.P.F., R.P.F. Post Jaipur. 4. Subhash Chand S/o Shri Ramchandra, R/o Malikpur, Village Gyanpur, Police Station Ringus, District Sikar, Presently Posted As Head Constable, R.P.F. Post, Jaipur. 5. Chhaganlal Kumawat S/o Shri Parasram, R/o M.D. Post J.K., Village Kankroli, Police Station Kankroli, District Rajsamand, Presently Posted As Constable, R.P.F. Post, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Lokesh Kumar Sharma with Ms.Anjum Parveen For Respondent(s) : Mr.N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr.Yatharth Agarwal for Mr.Sudhir Jain JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 28/03/2026 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led by the complainant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”) to the impugned order dated 02.05.2017 passed by the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by which the application filed under Section 197(2) Cr.P.C. has been rejected. (2 of 5) [CRLMP-3709/2019] 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner has approached the Revisional Court by way of filing the revision petition, i.e. the Court of the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan, however, the same was also rejected vide order dated 18.02.2019. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner lodged an F.I.R. against the respondents wherein it was alleged that the accused-respondents were posted in Railway Protection Force and they have allegedly beaten, assaulted and abused the petitioner on the fateful day, when he visited the Railway Station. Counsel submits that for the aforesaid incident, an F.I.R. No.169/2015 was registered by him with the GRP Police Station under Section 323, 341, 342 & 201 IPC wherein charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-respondents. Counsel submits that at the stage of taking cognizance, an application was submitted by the accused-Sunil under Section 197(2) Cr.P.C. that cognizance cannot be taken against the accused persons in absence of the sanction for their prosecution, in terms of the Rule 255 of the Railway Protection Rules, 1987 and Section 197 Cr.P.C. Counsel submits that the said application has been erroneously accepted by the learned Magistrate vide impugned order dated 02.05.2017. 4. Counsel submits that the alleged incident, which was caused by the accused-persons, does not fall within the official discharge of their duties, hence, no sanction was required for their prosecution. 5. In support of the contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order passed by the (3 of 5) [CRLMP-3709/2019] Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of UP Vs. Paras Nath Singh reported in (2009) 6 SCC 372. 6. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the order impugned passed by both the Courts below are not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same are liable to be quashed and set- aside. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the complainant-petitioner took and drove a tractor and placed the same on the railway tracks, in front of the Shatabdi Express and when the accused persons tried to remove him from the said place, the instant false F.I.R. with vague allegations have been registered against the accused-respondents. Counsels conjointly submit that whatever has been done by the accused persons, the same has been done in the capacity of official discharge of their duties, hence, under these circumstances, they cannot be prosecuted in absence of prior sanction being obtained from the competent Authority. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted and the instant petition submitted by the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 8. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 9. Perusal of the record indicates that as per the case of the petitioner, the petitioner was allegedly beaten, assaulted and abused by the accused persons for which the impugned F.I.R. was lodged against them and thereafter, charge-sheet was also submitted against the accused persons as the offences punishable (4 of 5) [CRLMP-3709/2019] under Sections 323, 341, 342 & 201 Cr.P.C. were prima facie found against them. Before taking cognizance against the accused persons, at the relevant stage, one of the accused persons submitted an application under Section 197(2) Cr.P.C. on the ground that cognizance cannot be taken against any of the accused persons as the act done by them has been done in complete discharge of their official duties and they cannot be prosecuted in absence of prior sanction being obtained from the competent Authority. The said application has been entertained and allowed by the learned Magistrate, while passing the impugned order dated 02.05.2017. 10. A plea has been taken by the accused persons that the complainant-petitioner placed a vehicle (tractor) on the railway track in front of an incoming train and the accused persons while trying to remove him, when they snatched his hands, the alleged incident has took place. However, various versions and cross- versions with regard to the alleged incident has been recorded by the rival sides and after thorough investigation in the instant matter, the Police has found active role of the accused- respondents in committing the alleged offence with the petitioner and that is why, charge-sheet has been submitted against them under Sections 323, 341, 342 & 201 IPC. 11. In the considered opinion of this Court, any meticulous appreciation of the evidence is not required to be done at this initial stage. What has been done by the accused persons whether the same was in discharge of their official duties or not or whether any prosecution sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was required or not, all these facts could have been looked into at appropriate (5 of 5) [CRLMP-3709/2019] stage of the trial. At this initial stage of taking cognizance, only prima facie case is required to be seen. 12. Though, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Paras Nath Singh (Supra) has extended the protection to those accused for those acts or omissions which are done in purported exercise of official duty. That is under the colour of office. Official duty, therefore, implies that any act or omission must have been done by the public servant in the course of his service and such act or omission must have been performed as part of duty, which further must have been official in nature. The Section, i.e., Section 197 Cr.P.C. thus required to be construed strictly, while determining its applicability to any act or omission in the course of service. Its operation has to be limited to those duties which are discharged in the course of duty, but once any act or omission has been found to have been committed by the public servant in discharge of his duty, then it must be given liberal and wide construction so far its official nature is concerned. 13. This Court is of the considered opinion that otherwise also, it is not a fit stage, where these facts or defence of the accused persons could have been taken into account. On this count alone, the orders impugned passed by the Courts below are not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same are liable to be quashed and set-aside. 14. The Trial Court is directed to proceed further with the matter strictly in accordance with law. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /53