A police officer, including a Station House Officer (SHO), is entitled to the protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C., which requires prosecution sanction before initiating prosecution for acts or omissions done during the bona fide discharge of official duties, provided that the officer is charged with the maintenance of public order.

1. - The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner accused against the order dated 25.10.2012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi in Cr. Original Case No. 355/2012 (State v. Devi Dan) whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 166, 176, 186 and 187 I.P.C.

2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was posted as the S.H.O., Swaroopganj at the relevant time. It appears that the Judicial Magistrate, Pindwara forwarded certain complaints to the Police Station, Swaroopganj under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Despite the lapse of fairly long duration, the complaints were not registered as F.I.Rs. Accordingly, the C.J.M. Sirohi issued a notice dated 12.7.2012 to the present petitioner being the S.H.O. of the concerned police station to show cause as to why the F.I.Rs. were not registered on the basis of seven complaints forwarded by the Court to the Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. between the period 4.1.2012 to 25.4.2012. The petitioner, S.H.O. submitted an official reply mentioning that the complaints forwarded to the Police Station by the Judicial Magistrate, Pindwara were registered as F.I.Rs. and a list of the F.I.Rs. was included in the reply. Learned C.J.M. by order dated 25.10.2012 rejected the explanation forwarded by the petitioner holding that the petitioner committed dereliction of duties by failing to timely register the F.I.Rs. on the basis of the complaints forwarded to the police station by the Court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. By the same order dated 25.10.2012, the learned C.J.M. proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 166, 176, 186 and 187 I.P.C. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant misc. petition seeking quashing of the order dated 25.10.2012 passed by the C.J.M. Sirohi by invoking inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

3. Mr. Narpat Singh Charan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order, apart from being grossly illegal also amounts to a patent abuse of the process of the Court and thus deserves to be set aside. He submitted that the order impugned suffers from the following two apparent shortcomings, which bring it within the purview of being a gross abuse of process of court:-

A. Firstly, he submitted that the alleged offences relate to acts/omissions committed by the petitioner in the bona fide discharge of his official duties and as such, before prosecuting him for the offences allegedly committed during such process, it was mandatorily required to have procured prosecution sanction as per Section 197 Cr.P.C.r.

B. Secondly, it is submitted that as per the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C., cognizance of the offences for which the petitioner is being sought to be prosecuted could not have been taken without a complaint in writing by the public servant/court concerned.

4. Mr. Charan submitted that admittedly, learned C.J.M. proceeded to take cognizance without following both the aforementioned mandatory requirements of law and accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside as amounting to a gross abuse of the process of the Court. In support of his arguments, he relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh & Ors. v. Jammal Patel & Ors. reported in 2001 Cr.L.R.(SC)-542 and the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Ram Swaroop Sharma v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2007(5) W.L.C.(Raj.)-796

5. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner being the S.H.O. of the Police Station, Swaroopganj was under an obligation to forthwith register the F.I.Rs. on the basis of the complaints received from the Court. Rather than registering the F.I.Rs. in time, the petitioner kept sleeping over the same and it is only after receiving a notice from the Court that the F.I.Rs. were registered in six out of