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. 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 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