JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners accused have approached this court for challenging the order dated 15.6.2013, passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Hanumangarh and the order dated 20.6.2011, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rawatsar, in relation to criminal case No.329/2011 arising out from the FIR case No.178/2007 and FR No.57/2007 of Police Station Rawatsar. The trial court took cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 504, 323, 120-B IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. The revisional court partly accepted the revision preferred by the petitioners and quashed the order taking cognizance to the extent of the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. 2. Facts in brief are that the complainant Bhateri Devi lodged a complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Rawatsar on 23.5.2007 alleging interalia that she hails from a Schedule Caste background and resides with her family at Ward No.18, Rawatsar. On 9.5.2007 she alongwith her husband Dharampal had gone to Dhanmandi Rawatsar for doing their labour jobs. Her daughter Urmila was alone at the house. In the evening at about 4 O’clock, Krishna, who resides in the same locality, came and informed her that a boy, had entered into their house and had misbehaved with Urmila and the public was beating that boy. On hearing this, she accompanied by her husband and Bhoopram rushed to their house. The ladies present there informed her that Krishna had misbehaved with Urmila. Upon inquiry being made from Urmila, she told that Krishna had entered into their house and outraged her modesty. On hearing her cries, people from neighbourhood came and caught hold of Krishna and forced him to sit there while police came. The complainant alleged that when she along with her husband and brother-in-law went to Police Station Rawatsar to report the matter, Krishna was sitting there from before and was having bandages tied on his hands and legs. He laughed and exhorted that the complainant party should be put behind the bars. When the complainant and her husband met the SHO, he became enraged and abused them with insinuation that they had beaten his relative (Krishna) and allegedly exhorted the policemen present in the police station to beat the complainant party with belts. The complainant protested to the assault on which, Balaram snatched her ‘dupatta’ and abused her. When the complainant and her husband met the SHO, he became enraged and abused them with insinuation that they had beaten his relative (Krishna) and allegedly exhorted the policemen present in the police station to beat the complainant party with belts. The complainant protested to the assault on which, Balaram snatched her ‘dupatta’ and abused her. Krishna was asked to approach Dr. Hanuman and get himself admitted and a threat was given that the complainant party would be taken to task. The complainant’s husband and brother-in-law were detained and locked behind the bars after removing their clothes. The complainant stated that she would get a case registered against Krishna, on which Balaram became angry and groped at her breasts and also locked her up inside a room. Thereafter a false case was lodged against the complainant and her family members. The said complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. at Police Station Rawatsar wherein FIR No.178/2007 was registered and investigation commenced. The police, after concluding through investigation, filed a negative report in the court concerned. The complainant lodged a protest petition and prayed the court to take cognizance against the petitioners. The trial court, thereupon proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioners and the revisional court modified the order passed by the trial court as stated above. Being aggrieved by both these orders, the petitioners have approached this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the proceedings sought to be taken against them. 3. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel representing the petitioners, urged that ex-facie the allegations levelled by the complainant are false and fabricated. He placed reliance on the judgments rendered by this court in (1) “Devi Dan v. State of Rajasthan”, SB Cr.Misc.Petition No.2177/2013, decided on 10.10.2014, and (2) “Suryaveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.”, SB Cr.Misc.Petition No.1854/2009, decided on 23.5.2012, and contended that the impugned orders are bad in the eye of law. The complainant party had assaulted Krishna who was confined in the house of the complainant. When the petitioners being the police officials of the concerned police station, on receiving this information, reached the house of the complainant, they were threatened. The complainant party created a ruckus and indulged in breach of peace, upon which proceedings under Sections 107–116(3) Cr.P.C. were undertaken against them by the police on the very same day i.e. on 9.5.2007. When the petitioners being the police officials of the concerned police station, on receiving this information, reached the house of the complainant, they were threatened. The complainant party created a ruckus and indulged in breach of peace, upon which proceedings under Sections 107–116(3) Cr.P.C. were undertaken against them by the police on the very same day i.e. on 9.5.2007. The complainant as well as her husband were arrested under Section 107 – 151 Cr.P.C. and were presented before the Executive Magistrate concerned. They did not make any protest whatsoever before the Executive Magistrate regarding any mis-behaviour etc. against the police party. An FIR was registered against the complainant party in relation to the assault made upon Krishna on 9.5.2007 itself. Most significantly, the complainant’s daughter Mst. Urmila lodged a complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Rawatsar against Krishna on 11.5.2007 and in such complaint there is no reference whatsoever about any high handed act of police with the complainant party on 9.5.2007. He buttressed that the highly belated and malafide FIR was lodged in order to falsely implicate the police party who were bonafide investigating the FIR lodged by Krishna Jat against the complainant. Thus, he urges that the prosecution of the petitioners in this case and that too without procuring the mandatory sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., is totally unjust and prays that the impugned orders and all subsequent proceedings sought to be taken thereunder against the petitioners should be quashed. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the arguments advanced by Shri Gupta and stated that the investigating officer did not find the allegation levelled by the complainant substantiated after investigation. 5. Per contra, Shri Chandraveer Singh, learned counsel representing the complainant, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by Shri Gupta and urged that the two competent courts have recorded concurrent findings of facts holding that the petitioners are responsible for the offences alleged and, thus, this court should refrain from interfering in the matter while exercising its inherent powers. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and have gone through the impugned orders and have also perused the material placed on record. 7. The following admitted sequence of events emerges from a perusal of the record - 1. The alleged incident took place on 9.5.2007; 2. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and have gone through the impugned orders and have also perused the material placed on record. 7. The following admitted sequence of events emerges from a perusal of the record - 1. The alleged incident took place on 9.5.2007; 2. The complainant party was proceeded with under Sections 107, 151 and 116(3) Cr.P.C. on the very same day and a complaint was filed against them in the court of learned SDM, Rawatsar on 10.5.2007; 3. No protest of any kind was made by them when produced before the SDO in these proceedings regarding any police atrocities having been committed upon them on 9.5.2007; and 4. Urmila, daughter of the complainant, in whose presence, the entire incident is said to have taken place, lodged a complaint against Krishna Jat referred to supra in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Rawatsar on 11.5.2007 and in the said complaint as well, there is no reference to any incident of the kind referred to in the belated FIR lodged by Smt. Bhateri Devi against the petitioners. 8. Had there been an iota of truth in the allegations levelled by the complainant, then these facts would definitely have been narrated in the FIR lodged by Urmila and even the complainant and her husband would have spoken out about the so called police atrocities excesses allegedly committed upon them, when they were produced before the Executive Magistrate. These significant omissions bring the complainant’s conduct under a serious cloud of doubt. 9. Admittedly, the police officials (petitioners herein) had gone to the complainant’s house on the information that Krishna Jat was being assaulted after being confined there. There, the complainant and her family members indulged in committing breach of peace on which procedure of Section 107–116(3) Cr.P.C. was invoked. 10. In this background, this court is of the firm opinion that allowing the prosecution of the petitioners, without procuring the mandatory prosecution sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., is absolutely impermissible as has been held by this court in the judgments referred to supra. 10. In this background, this court is of the firm opinion that allowing the prosecution of the petitioners, without procuring the mandatory prosecution sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., is absolutely impermissible as has been held by this court in the judgments referred to supra. Further more, the significant omissions of the complainant party in failing to lodge any protest regarding so called police atrocities when they were produced before the Executive Magistrate and the absence of such allegations in the complaint filed by Urmila are strong circumstances indicating that the highly belated report on 11.5.2007 lodged by the complainant against the petitioners, is based on totally false and fabricated allegations. 11. In view of the above discussion, I am of the firm opinion that allowing prosecution of the petitioners to be continued for such frivolous allegations amounts to a gross abuse of process of court. 12. Resultantly, the misc. petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders dated 20.6.2011 and 15.6.2013 and all subsequent proceedings sought to be taken thereunder against the petitioners are hereby quashed. The stay application is disposed of.