JUDGMENT 1. - By way of instant petition under Section 482 Cr.PC, petitioners have challenged the order dated 25.9.2002 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bikaner confirming the order of the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Bikaner dated 18.9.2000 rejecting petitioners application under Section 245(2) CrPC. 2. Briefly stated that facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 Bhajana Ram filed a complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate I Class stating that on 3.9.98, while he along with Rameshwar was on the 'dhaba' of Mani Ram, accused persons arrived in a jeep. The incharge of the Police Station viz; Bhanwar Singh and one Constable Ishar Ram caught hold of him and gave beating. Further details of the case were also given. On the basis of the complaint, the learned Magistrate has registered a case for the offence u/s 353 IPC. Petitioners No. 1 lshar Ram and No. 2 Bhanwar Singh are Constable and Sub-Inspector respectively. They filed an application stating that the entire proceedings against them are wholly without jurisdiction in absence of sanction by the State Government under Section 197 Cr.PC. The said application has been rejected by the learned Magistrate simply on the ground that as to whether the petitioners herein were acting and discharging official duties or not can be considered only after the statements of the witnesses are recorded. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Apparently, a case of theft was registered against the complainant petitioners Ishar Ram & Bhanwar Singh, who are the Constable and Sib-Inspector of Police respectively arrested the complainant in connection with a theft case. Thus, they have acted in discharge of their official duties. It is unfortunate that the learned Magistrate has registered a case against a public servant without verifying the facts simply on a private complaint. Undoubtedly, on facts of the case, petitioners are entitled to protection of Section 197 CrPC. It is not necessary to refer to the case law on the subject. If need be, reference be made to (1) Rameshwar Dayai v. State, 1991 Cr LR 563 ; (2) Rizvan Ahmed v. ......, 2001 Cr LR (SC) 542 ; and Abdul Wahab Ansari v. State of Bihar, 2001 SCC (Cri) 18 . 5. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. The order of both the courts below are set aside. 5. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. The order of both the courts below are set aside. The proceedings against the petitioners in Criminal Case No. 313/98 are quashed and set aside.Petition Allowed - Proceedings Quashed. *******