The Rajasthan High Court has quashed an ex-parte revisional court order passed against a serving Indian Navy officer, holding that notices to military personnel must be served in the manner prescribed under the Rajasthan General Rules (Civil & Criminal), 2018. The court found that the mandatory procedure for serving notices on members of the Armed Forces had not been followed before the revisional court proceeded against the officer.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from an FIR registered in Jaipur in 2017 against several individuals, including Lieutenant Commander Dhananjay Kumar Mishra. Following investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against certain accused persons, but not against the petitioner.
Subsequently, the complainant moved an application seeking cognizance against the petitioner as well. The Metropolitan Magistrate rejected that request on 8 November 2019.
Challenging that decision, the complainant filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-I. The revisional court allowed the revision on 11 May 2023, set aside the magistrate's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
The petitioner then approached the High Court, contending that the revisional court had proceeded ex-parte without properly serving notice upon him.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand examined whether valid notice had been served on the petitioner, who was serving as a Lieutenant Commander in the Indian Navy and was posted at Port Blair when the revision proceedings were initiated.
The court noted that the revisional court had treated service as complete based on a postal tracking report after notices were sent through registered post.
However, the High Court referred to Order 31 Rule 5 of the General Rules (Civil & Criminal), 2018, which lays down a specific procedure for serving notices on soldiers, sailors and airmen.
“The provision makes it explicitly clear that it is mandatory for the Presiding Officer to send the summons for service to the Commanding Officer of such Soldier, Sailor or Airman,” the bench observed.
Justice Dhand further noted that the rule exists to ensure that sufficient arrangements can be made by the Armed Forces authorities for the concerned personnel to participate in legal proceedings.
The court found that this statutory procedure had not been followed in the present case and that notices had not been routed through the petitioner's Commanding Officer as required by law.
Holding that the mandatory service requirements had been overlooked, the High Court set aside the revisional court's order dated 11 May 2023.
The bench remitted the matter back to the revisional court for fresh consideration after giving the petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing.
The court also directed the petitioner to place a copy of the order before his Commanding Officer and seek permission to participate in the proceedings through counsel or, if required, through video conferencing.
Further, the High Court clarified that the revisional court must decide the matter afresh without being influenced by its earlier order.
Since cognizance had subsequently been taken against the petitioner on the basis of the revisional court's order, the High Court held that once the revisional order stood set aside, the cognizance order passed thereafter would also automatically stand set aside.
Case Details
Case Title: Dhananjay Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4439/2023
Judge: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
Decision Date: 20 May 2026
