The Rajasthan High Court has set aside criminal proceedings against a Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) enforcement officer, holding that courts cannot take cognizance of offences against a public servant for acts performed in official duty without prior government sanction.
Justice Pramil Kumar Mathur ruled that the allegations against the officer arose directly from an official action to remove encroachment on public land. Since no sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) had been obtained, the prosecution itself was legally unsustainable.
Read also:- Chhattisgarh High Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Against Judges, Says Allegations Based
Background of the Case
The case originated from a complaint filed by Vijay Sharma at Bajaj Nagar Police Station in Jaipur. The complaint alleged that on the morning of March 6, 2002, a group of around 50–60 persons allegedly entered the disputed premises and demolished the boundary wall and gate, causing damage to property and injuries to people present there.
Based on this report, the police registered FIR No. 101/2002 under Sections 147 (rioting), 451 (house trespass), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 427 (mischief causing damage) of the Indian Penal Code.
After investigation, the police filed a negative final report. However, the complainant filed a protest petition, and the Magistrate later took cognizance against Rajeev Dutta on February 10, 2009. That order was subsequently upheld by a revisional court in May 2018.
Challenging both orders, the petitioner approached the Rajasthan High Court.
Read also:- Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Folk Singer Neha Singh Rathore In FIR Over Posts On PM
Petitioner’s Arguments
Counsel for the petitioner argued that Rajeev Dutta was serving as an Enforcement Officer with the Jaipur Development Authority at the relevant time and was performing official duties related to removing encroachments from public land.
It was submitted that actions taken during such enforcement operations fall within official functions. Therefore, prosecution could not proceed without prior sanction from the competent authority as required under Section 197 CrPC.
The petitioner also relied on recent Supreme Court rulings explaining that protection under Section 197 applies when the alleged act has a reasonable connection with official duty.
Court’s Observations
The High Court examined whether prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC was mandatory before the Magistrate could take cognizance of the alleged offences.
The court reiterated the purpose of the provision, noting that it exists to protect public servants from unnecessary criminal prosecution when actions are taken in the discharge of official duties.
“The protection under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is attracted where the alleged act has a reasonable nexus with the discharge of official duty,” the court observed.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Quashes Ombudsman Proceedings Against Village Officer, Says He Is Not
Justice Mathur noted that the removal of encroachment was an official exercise carried out by JDA officers under statutory powers and directions of senior authorities.
The court also referred to Section 78 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982, which provides immunity to officers for acts performed in good faith under the Act.
“The acts complained of cannot be said to be wholly unconnected with the discharge of official functions,” the court said.
It further emphasized that even if procedural irregularities are alleged, protection under Section 197 CrPC would still apply if the act was connected to official duties.
Decision of the Court
After examining the facts and legal provisions, the High Court concluded that the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence without prior sanction from the competent authority.
The court held that the protection under Section 197 CrPC and Section 78 of the JDA Act applied in the case.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the order dated February 10, 2009 passed by the trial court and the revisional court’s order dated May 21, 2018.
“All consequential proceedings against the petitioner are hereby quashed,” the court ordered.
Case Title: Rajeev Dutta v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3377/2018
Decision Date: 10 March 2026
