Back
2024 Supreme(Raj) 356
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ARUN MONGA, J.
Chandrashekhar S/o Shri Ramesh Kilaaniya – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 1055 of 2024
Decided On : 24-07-2024
For the Petitioner: Yogendra Singh Charan.
For the Respondent: Gaurav Singh.
IMPORTANT POINT
Cognizance of offences against a government servant requires prior sanction from the government, and complaints must be filed within the limitation period as prescribed by law.
Headnote:
Cognizance - Criminal Procedure - The court held that the cognizance taken against the petitioner was invalid due to the lack of mandatory government sanction for prosecution of a government servant and the complaint being barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C., leading to the dismissal of the complaint and quashing of previous orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a government servant, was accused of offences under Sections 323 and 341 IPC based on a complaint filed in 2009. The learned Magistrate took cognizance in 2015, prompting the petitioner to file a revision petition which was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cognizance order was passed after a lapse of 6 years, which is barred under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Additionally, the court noted that the necessary prior sanction for prosecution of a government servant was not obtained.
Issues: Whether the cognizance taken against the petitioner was valid given the lack of government sanction and the time limitation for filing the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that under Section 468 Cr.P.C., a complaint must be filed within a specified time frame, and for government servants, prior sanction is mandatory before prosecution.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, the impugned orders were quashed, and the complaint was dismissed.
ORDER :
1. Petitioner herein is aggrieved of the order dated 04.01.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Begu, Chittorgarh in Criminal Revision Petition No. 65/2021, dismissing the revision petition and affirming the order dated 10.03.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rawatbhata whereby cognizance for the offences under Sections 323 and 341 IPC was taken against the petitioner.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging aforesaid offences before the learned Magistrate on 28.04.2009. The learned Magistrate took cognizance thereof vide an order dated 10.03.2015. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred revision petition before the learned Sessions Court, which too was dismissed. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a Government servant and is currently serving as Assistant Sub-Inspector in Rajasthan Police and cognizance of the offences has been taken against him by the learned Magistrate on a private complaint without seeking the mandatory sanction from the Government. Further, he would point out that even the complaint, which was filed before the learned Magistrate is barred under Section 468 Cr.P.C. as the alleged incident pertains to the year 2009. The impugned cognizance order was passed in the year 2015, after a lapse of 6 years.
4. On a Court query, learned Public Prosecutor concedes that the cognizance order was indeed passed after a lapse of 6 years. The said fact is since not disputed, I see no reason why the benefit of Section 468 Cr.P.C. be not extended to the petitioner. Apart therefrom, I find merit in the other argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that prior sanction ought to have been obtained before proceeding for trial to prosecute the petitioner.
5. On both counts, the complaint was not maintainable before the learned Magistrate.
6. In the premise, the instant petition is allowed. Both the impugned orders are quashed and the complaint filed before the learned Magistrate is dismissed.
7. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
