- (1.) The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner Rajpal Kaur for assailing the order dated 22.05.2019 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Suratgarh District Sriganganagar rejecting the criminal revision petition (No.23/2014) preferred by the petitioner and affirming the order dated 06.03.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh in Criminal Case (No. 103/2014) whereby cognizance was taken against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 166, 477 and 477-A of the IPC and warrant of arrest was issued against her.
(2.) Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal misc. petition are noted hereinbelow:- The petitioner was posted as a Patwari, Patwar Mandal Konpalsar from 19.04.2008 to 20.09.2008. She was having charge of the revenue record of the Village Ladher which included the mutation register. The petitioner gave charge to the Patwari Hardeep Singh who recorded in his Charge Taking Report that Mutation Entries Nos.228-229 were not available in the mutation register and had been torn and removed. On the basis of this report, an inquiry was initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 and the District Collector also directed registration of an FIR against her. On the basis of this direction, FIR No.79/2012 came to be registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 167, 477 and 477-A of the IPC. After investigation, a negative report came to be filed against the petitioner with the conclusion that only non-cognizable offences under Sections 477 and 477-A of the IPC were made out against her. The learned Magistrate proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioner for these offences by order dated 06.03.2014. The petitioner challenged the order taking cognizance by filing revision petition (No.23/2014) which was dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Suratgarh vide order dated 22.05.2019. These two orders are assailed in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
(3.) Shri Akash Kukkar, learned counsel representing the petitioner placed reliance on this Court's judgment in the case of Satyaveer Jakhar vs Taj Mohammed Rathore and Anr. : 2013 (4) WLC (Raj.) 383 and urged that the impugned orders are bad in the eyes of law and deserve to be quashed. He submitted that the petitioner was working as a public servant and the alleged offences if at all were committed during the course of discharge of her official duties and thus, procuring sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. before launching the prosecution was sine qua non. In absence of sanction, the prosecution of the petitioner is impermissible. He thus urged that the impugned orders dated 22.05.2019 and 06.03.2014 should be quashed and set aside.;