Partly allowed

Sunil Mittal S/O Sh. Rameshwar Prasad Gupta, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Dec 2024CRLMP/8214/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court allowed S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 8214/2024. The court quashed arrest warrants issued against the petitioner and permitted him to file an application regarding the lack of prior sanction. The petitioner was directed to appear before the trial court within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Arrest warrants quashed; liberty to file application regarding prior sanction; directed to appear before Trial Court within four weeks.

Sunil Mittal S/O Sh. Rameshwar Prasad… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:50379]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8214/2024

¶4

Sunil Mittal S/o Sh. Rameshwar Prasad Gupta, Aged About 56 Years, R/o B-138, Kirti Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Previously Posted As Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction-I) NorthWestern Railway, Dausa, Presently Posted As Chief Engineer (Civil), North- Western Railway, Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Kevalram Meena, Regional Forest Officer, Lalsot, District Dausa.

¶8

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anurag Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶10

Order

¶11

06/12/2024

¶12

This petition has been filed on the following prayer:-

¶13

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow this petition and be pleased to summon the entire relevant record and after perusal of the same, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide order dated 13.10.2009 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalsot, District Dausa in criminal case no. 396/09 whereby cognizance was taken against him for offences u/s 26 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 and S. 2 of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and all consequential proceedings thereto Act may be quashed and set aside.

¶14

Without prejudice to the foregoing and alternatively the learned Court below may be

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:50379]

[CRLMP-8214/2024]

directed to summon the petitioner through bailable warrant.

¶19

Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper be also passed in favour of the petitioner.”

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a public servant as defined under Section 21 of the IPC and Section 197 of Cr.P.C. puts a bar on Courts to take cognizance of offences against public servant without prior sanction of the competent authority. He further submits that taking of cognizance and initiation of criminal proceedings are illegal and are liable to be quashed. He further submits that it is well settled law that after taking cognizance, the accused should be summoned by issuing summon and after service of summons through bailable warrants and after service of bailable warrants by arrest warrant. However, learned Trial Court has issued non-bailable warrants against the petitioner without summons and bailable warrants being duly served upon the petitioner.

¶21

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition may be disposed of at this stage only by giving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and by converting arrest warrants issued against the petitioner into bailable warrants.

¶22

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application before learned Trial Court with regard to his objection relating to prior sanction before taking cognizance against the petitioner. Order of issuing arrest warrants against the petitioner by the Trial Court is quashed. Petitioner is directed to appear

[2024:RJ-JP:50379]

[CRLMP-8214/2024]

(3 of 3)

before learned Trial Court within four weeks of the passing of this order. Trial Court is directed to release the accused-petitioner on bail if the accused-petitioner furnishes the bail bond as directed by the trial Court and to the satisfaction of the trial Court. It is clarified that if the accused-petitioner does not appear before the trial Court within four weeks from the passing of this order, then this order shall lose its efficacy.

¶27

With the aforesaid directions, this petition is dispose of.

¶28

Stay application also stands disposed of.

¶29

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶30

Mohita /30

Sunil Mittal S/O Sh. Rameshwar Prasad Gupta, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Mittal S/O Sh. Rameshwar Prasad Gupta, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Raj Singh and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Bheem Singh and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Raghuveer Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Mustak Mohammad S/O Najar Mohammad, Vs State of Rajasthan

Sonu Ali S/O Munna Vs State of Rajasthan

Somdutt S/O Shri Biharilal, Vs State of Rajasthan