JUDGMENT : Mr. P.K. Lohra, J. 1. Accused-petitioner has laid this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to assail impugned order dated 9th of May, 2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nawa City, District Nagaur (for short, 'learned trial Court') and the entire proceedings pending before the Court in Criminal Case No.182/2003 (Nanu Ram v. Ranveer Singh). 2. The facts, necessary and germane to the matter, are that respondent-complainant filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner for offence under (2 of 6) [CRLMP-1098/2011] Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1988 as well as Sections 323 and 341 IPC. 3. The Learned trial Court proceeded to record statements of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and also made endeavour inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., by recording statements of witness, Ram Prasad Sabu and Tanjeet Khan. After completing the inquiry, the learned trial Court proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence on 13th June, 2003. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred revision petition before Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Parbatsar, District Nagaur under Section 397 Cr.P.C. The learned revisional Court, upon examining the matter, in its entirety prima faice, found that petitioner is a public servant; therefore, sans sanction for prosecution, cognizance cannot be taken against him. With these observations, learned revisional Court remanded the matter back to the learned trial Court for deciding the matter afresh after considering application of the petitioner under Section 197 Cr.P.C. Pursuant to remand order, arguments were heard by the learned trial court and, by the order impugned, learned trial Court without deciding the application under Section 197 Cr.P.C., directed the (3 of 6) [CRLMP-1098/2011] competent authority of Public Works Department to issue necessary sanction for prosecution for the aforesaid offence against the petitioner. It is in that background petitioner has approached this Court by invoking inherent jurisdiction. 5. Mr. Vikas Bijarnia, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that grant of sanction for prosecution is a prerogative of the competent authority and competent authority is expected to decide such matter upon, prima facie, examination of the available material and no directions can be issued by a court to the competent authority to decide issue in a particular manner. 5. Mr. Vikas Bijarnia, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that grant of sanction for prosecution is a prerogative of the competent authority and competent authority is expected to decide such matter upon, prima facie, examination of the available material and no directions can be issued by a court to the competent authority to decide issue in a particular manner. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that by passing the impugned order, the learned trial Court has overstepped its jurisdiction, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel further submits that against a public servant cognizance for any offence allegedly committed by him, while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, is barred in want of proper sanction for prosecution under Section 197 Cr.P.C., and therefore, the entire proceedings pending before learned trial Court merits annulment. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the learned trial Court has simply issued necessary directions and the said order is not liable to (4 of 6) [CRLMP-1098/2011] be interfered with. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public prosecutor, perused the impugned order and entire record of the case. 8. The crucial question, which has cropped up for judicial scrutiny, is whether cognizance can be taken against a public servant without there being sanction for prosecution by a competent authority as mandated under Section 197 Cr.P.C. 9. The matter, at the threshold, when came up before the Court, the Court was pleased to issue notice to the complainant and stayed the impugned order. When despite service of notice, none appeared for the complainant, the petition was admitted on 2nd of January, 2013 and interim order was made absolute. Pursuant to notice issued after admission also, nobody appeared for the complainant. It is also borne out from the record that respondent- complainant is not appearing before the learned trial Court since 1st of April, 2008. This sort of situation makes it abundantly clear that the complainant is not interested to pursue the matter. The fact that the petitioner, at that point of time, was working as Junior Engineer with the Public Works Department is not in dispute and this fact is also borne out from the impugned order. 10. This sort of situation makes it abundantly clear that the complainant is not interested to pursue the matter. The fact that the petitioner, at that point of time, was working as Junior Engineer with the Public Works Department is not in dispute and this fact is also borne out from the impugned order. 10. By virtue of Section 197 Cr.P.C., a criminal Court cannot take cognizance of offence against a public servant without there being any proper sanction for prosecution by the competent authority. A glance at the impugned order also makes it crystal clear that the learned trial Court has also realized this aspect of the matter and that is why it has issued necessary directions to the competent authority for issuance of sanction for prosecution. However, the grant of sanction for prosecution is the sole prerogative of the competent authority and no authority howsoever high it may be can trench into the jurisdiction of a competent authority in the matter of grant of sanction for prosecution. 11. The competent authority, while considering the issue relating to grant of sanction for prosecution, is required to examine the requisite incriminating evidence available against a public servant for arriving at its conclusion that it is necessary and expedient to grant sanction for prosecution. The competent authority, in such matters, cannot be allowed to act mechanically at its whims and fancy nor it can be guided by directions of any authority may it be higher in hierarchy. 12. Strangely, in the instant case, though the learned trial Court has acknowledged status of the (6 of 6) [CRLMP-1098/2011] petitioner as a public servant and observed that in want of sanction for prosecution proceedings cannot be continued, it has overstepped its jurisdiction to issue necessary directions to the competent authority for granting sanction for prosecution. The said order, in the considered opinion of this Court, is a glaring example of abuse of the process of the Court and therefore, cannot be sustained. 13. As the complainant is not at all interested to pursue the matter and the fact that the petitioner is a public servant, obviously, sans sanction for prosecution allowing proceedings to continue in the matter before the learned trial Court would result in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, I feel persuaded to accede to other prayer of the petitioner for quashing the entire proceedings in the matter. 14. Resultantly, petition is allowed. Therefore, I feel persuaded to accede to other prayer of the petitioner for quashing the entire proceedings in the matter. 14. Resultantly, petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 09.05.2011 as well as entire proceedings in Criminal Case No.182/2003 (Nanu Ram v. Ranveer Singh) pending before learned trial Court are, hereby, quashed and set aside.