Jagdish NaraIn and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Jagdish NaraIn and anr. vs State of Rajasthan and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Feb 01, 2007

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/772420

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/772420
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: K.S. Rathore, J.
Decided On: Feb 01, 2007
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 729/1999
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 197--Sanction for prosecution--When not necessary--First Information Report for offence under Sections 341, 325, 323/34 Indian Penal Code--Accused petitioners are police constables--Incident occurred when they were not on duty and were not discharging duties--Held, prior sanct...

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jagdish NaraIn and anr.

Respondent

State of Rajasthan and anr.

Legal References

Reported In: 2007(2)WLN244(1)

Excerpt

criminal procedure code, 1973 - section 197--sanction for prosecution--when not necessary--first information report for offence under sections 341, 325, 323/34 indian penal code--accused petitioners are police constables--incident occurred when they were not on duty and were not discharging duties--held, prior sanction under section 197 is not necessary to prosecute petitioners.;petition dismissed. - - 5. i have also gone through the relevant record as well as the impugned order dt.k.s. rathore, j.1. this revision petition under section 397 cr.p.c. is preferred by the accused-petitioners against the judgment dt. 07.09.1999 passed by the civil judge (jd) and judicial magistrate, tonk in criminal case no. 140/ 1988.2. brief facts of the case that a private complaint was filed after 35 days of the incident for the offence under sections 341, 325 and 323/34 ipc. it is alleged that the private complaint which has been filed is afterthought without complying the provisions of section 154 cr.p.c. it is also alleged that the petitioners moved application dt. 03.08.1999 stating therein that before taking cognizance previous sanction under section 197 cr.p.c. is required to be taken.3. as per the provisions of section 197 cr.p.c., prosecution of judges and public servants- (1) when any person who is or was a judge or magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction.4. here in the instant case, the accused petitioners are police constables and the incident occurred when they were not on duty and were not discharging the duties. therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, prior sanction under section 197 cr.p.c. is not required.5. i have also gone through the relevant record as well as the impugned order dt. 07.09.1999, it is not a case where any prior sanction under section 197 cr.p.c. is required. thus, i find no illegality or error in the impugned order which do not require any interference by this court.6. consequently, the revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.7. record be sent back forthwith.

Full Judgment

K.S. Rathore, J.

1. This revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is preferred by the accused-petitioners against the judgment dt. 07.09.1999 passed by the Civil Judge (JD) and Judicial Magistrate, Tonk in Criminal Case No. 140/ 1988.

2. Brief facts of the case that a private complaint was filed after 35 days of the incident for the offence under Sections 341, 325 and 323/34 IPC. It is alleged that the private complaint which has been filed is afterthought without complying the provisions of Section 154 Cr.P.C. It is also alleged that the petitioners moved application dt. 03.08.1999 stating therein that before taking cognizance previous sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is required to be taken.

3. As per the provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C., prosecution of Judges and public servants- (1) when any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction.

4. Here in the instant case, the accused petitioners are Police Constables and the incident occurred when they were not on duty and were not discharging the duties. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not required.

5. I have also gone through the relevant record as well as the impugned order dt. 07.09.1999, it is not a case where any prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is required. Thus, I find no illegality or error in the impugned order which do not require any interference by this Court.

6. Consequently, the revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

7. Record be sent back forthwith.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 2007 Same Parties Jagdish NaraIn and anr. vs State of Rajasthan and anr. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge K.S. Rathore, J.

Criminal