##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:28101]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 961/2018 URN: CRLMP / 1590U / 2018 Surendra Singh Bhati S/o Shri Bhagwat Singh Bhati, R/o A-36, Jawahar Nagar, Kota.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jaswant Singh and Mr. Namo Narayan Meena for Mr. Harendra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, P.P.

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

21/07/2026 Reportable

1. The instant petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 23.06.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Kota (North) whereby the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 197 CrPC has been rejected.

2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted a revision petition before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Kota. However, the same was also rejected by the Revisional Court vide impugned order dated 12.01.2018.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was posted as Station House Officer at Police Station Dadabadi, District Kota at the relevant time. Counsel further submits that in connection with a criminal case bearing No. 173/2003, two accused persons namely Sudhir Jain and Shailendra Gautam were arrested and produced before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kota (for short “ACJM No.2, Kota”) on 22.04.2003 for orders on their Police Custody remand (for short "PC remand"). However, the prayer for PC remand was rejected and an order was passed, directing the accused persons to be sent to judicial custody. Thereafter, the accused persons submitted bail applications for their release before the Court of ACJM No.2, Kota, who passed an order for production of the case diary before the Court on 23.04.2003. However, the case diary was not produced on the said date and the case was posted for the next date, i.e. 24.04.2003. Even on the next date, the case diary was not produced and the case was again posted for the following day, i.e. 25.04.2003. Counsel submits that on account of non-production of case diary despite repeated orders of the Court, the ACJM No.2, Kota issued a notice under Section 175 IPC to the petitioner asking him to submit his explanation/reasons for non-production of case diary before the Court. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner submitted his reply to the aforesaid notice, wherein it was stated that the petitioner never received any letter/communication from the Public Prosecutor for production of case diary before the Court, therefore, the case diary could not be produced on the above dates. He further submits that without considering the aforesaid explanation of the petitioner, cognizance was taken against him for the offence under Section 175 IPC by the ACJM No.2, Kota vide order dated 26.04.2003.

4. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a Public Servant and without seeking the prosecution sanction under Section 197 CrPC, cognizance cannot be taken against him for the offence under Section 175 IPC. Under such circumstances, an application was submitted by the petitioner for dropping the proceedings initiated against him for the offence under Section 175 IPC, however, the said application was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate, Kota (North) and subsequently by the Revisional Court vide both the impugned orders.

5. Learned counsel submits that on account of non- communication of the order of summoning of case diary, the petitioner could not produce the same before the Court of ACJM No.2, Kota and the aforesaid order could not be complied with by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has not committed any offence under Section 175 IPC, which warrants his prosecution. Counsel submits that the petitioner is a Public Servant and therefore, unless and until an order of prosecution sanction is not passed against him under Section 197 CrPC, he cannot be prosecuted. Howev