Megha Ram vs State Of Rajasthan

In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.

The petitioner herein was posted as a Constable at the Police Station Mandalgadh. Arrest warrants were ordered to be issued to the accused in a

Criminal Case No.312/2014 titled as ""Neeraj Vs. Prabhu"", pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara.

The matter was taken up on 31.01.2019, on which date, the trial court seems to have realized that some of the arrest warrants, which were handed

over to the petitioner Constable, were not delivered at the Police Station Mandalgrah. Thereupon, the learned Magistrate proceeded to initiate suo

moto proceedings against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 166 and 221 IPC by order dated 16.07.2019. The petitioner has approached

this court by filing this miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for assailing the said order.

I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel representing the petitioner, and the learned Public Prosecutor and have

gone through the impugned order.

This court is apprised that number of such orders have been passed by the Presiding Officer initiating suo moto criminal proceedings against the police

officials for failing to get the summons served. In the present case, it is not in doubt that prior to taking cognizance for the offence under Section 166

IPC, prosecution sanction is a sine qua non. However, the learned trial court tried to bypass this requirement observing that the petitioner was a police

Constable and thus, he was not removable by the State Government and hence, there was no requirement to procure the prosecution sanction before

taking cognizance against him.

In this regard, it may be mentioned here that the State Government has issued the Notification No.F.20 (7) Home (Gr.VI)/74 dated 31.07.1974,

whereby the benefit of Section 197 CrPC has been extended even to police officers in the rank of Constables. Thus, the prosecution of the petitioner

cannot be permitted for want of prior sanction.

That apart, I am of the opinion that the trial court acted with undue harshness and haste while straightaway directing that cognizance be taken against

the petitioner. Before initiating suchstringent action, it was at least expected of the trial court to have sought explanation of the petitioner in relation to

the allegations set out against him, more particularly, when the court was proceeding suo moto. Instances are not uncommon wherein, despite direction

of the court, concerned clerk/Registry omits to issue the notices, summons or warrants, as the case may be. If the view taken by the learned

Magistrate is approved, in every such case, the Ministerial staff of the Court would be liable to face prosecution.

Accordingly, in the considered opinion of this court, the impugned order cannot be sustained as the same amounts to a gross abuse of process of law.

It is this court's firm opinion that trial court acted with undue haste and without ascertaining the complete facts before initiating the absolutely

unwarranted suo moto criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Thus, the impugned order dated 16.07.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara is hereby quashed and set aside. The miscellaneous petition is allowed in these terms. The stay application

is disposed of.

A copy of this order be placed before Hon'ble the Inspecting Judge of District Bhilwara for consideration.