[2026:RJ-JP:21903] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 793/2024 1. Dinesh Chaudhary S/o Tezpal Chaudhary, Resident of Gram Ittawa Bopji Thana Saamod, District Jaipur, At That Time Constable Police Station Mahaveer Nagar, Kota (Rajasthan) 2. Babulal S/o Chotulal, Resident of H.No. D-422, Azaad Nagar Thana, Pratap Nagar, Bhilwara At That Time A.s.i. Police Station Mahaveer Nagar, Kota (Rajasthan) 3. Ramswroop S/o Ramlal, Resident of Manpura Thana Daiee, District Bundi That Time SI Police Station Mahaveer Nagar, Kota (Rajasthan) ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through P.P 2. Harinarayan Gautam S/o Birdhi Lal Gautam, R/o 6-B-25, Mahaveer Nagar Vistar Yojna, Kota, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sneh Deep Khyaliya Mr. Siddharth Sharma Mr. Himanshu Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.S. Rathore-PP with Ms. Neha Goyal JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 22/05/2026 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 19.08.2023, passed by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Kota in Criminal Revision No. 300/2021 by which the order dated 29.10.2021, passed by the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Kota has been quashed and set aside and it has [2026:RJ-JP:21903] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-793/2024] been observed by the Revisional Court that the offences under Sections 166, 166A, 323 and 342 read with Section 149 IPC are made out against the petitioners and the matter has been remitted to the learned Magistrate for taking cognizance against the petitioners for the above stated offences. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant-respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners, who are the police officials, and without getting the sanction to prosecute them, cognizance could not be taken against the public servant, hence, the learned Magistrate directed the complainant to present the order of sanction in order to take cognizance against the petitioners and the aforesaid order was passed by the learned Magistrate on 29.10.2021. Counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent submitted a revision petition before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kota and the same has been allowed vide order dated 19.08.2023 and the order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the learned Magistrate has been quashed and the matter has been remitted to the learned Magistrate with a direction to take cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 166, 166A, 323 and 342 read with Section 149 IPC. Counsel submits that the Revisional Court is not having any such power or jurisdiction to pass such directions under Section 398 Cr.P.C. inspite of above, the order impugned has been passed, which is not legally sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be rejected. [2026:RJ-JP:21903] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-793/2024] 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners but he is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that with regard to certain allegations levelled against the petitioners, the respondent- complainant filed a complaint against the petitioners before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Kota. The learned Magistrate was of the view that the petitioners are public servants and cognizance cannot be taken against them in absence of the prosecution sanction. Hence, a liberty was granted to the complainant to submit the prosecution sanction, so that appropriate proceedings can be initiated against the petitioners. It appears that the complainant-respondent was aggrieved by the aforesaid order and he assailed the same before the Revisional Court by way of filing a revision petition and the same was allowed vide order dated 19.08.2023 and a direction has been issued to the learned Magistrate to take cognizance against the petitioners for the above stated offences. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, such order or directions cannot be issued by the Revisional Court, as in view of the provisions contained under Section 398 Cr.P.C., the revisional Court has no power or jurisdiction to pass such an order and in the light of the decision which has already been taken by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gulab Jati Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., reported in 2001 SCC Online Raj. 1309. [2026:RJ-JP:21903] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-793/2024] 7. Considering the proposition of law as propounded by this Court in the case of Gulab Jati (Supra), the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the Revisional Court for passing fresh order, after providing appropriate opportunity of hearing to both sides strictly in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application (s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/62