JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - Both these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment as common question of law and fact is involved therein. 2. Petitioners have approached this Court against summoning order dated 3.11.2017 issued against them by the trial Court in private complaint case No. 28-2 of 2017, titled Prem Singh Tangania Vs. Anjum Ara and others filed by respondent No. 1 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan. 3. It is submitted on behalf of petitioners that petitioners were discharging their official functions and duties in the office of Superintendent of Police, Solan and for act and conduct of complainant/respondent, a report was registered against him in Police Post, Solan under Sections 186 and 189 of IPC and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan had accorded permission to investigate the same vide order dated 13.5.2016 and after investigation kalandra has been presented in the Court in respect of the complainant under Sections 186 and 189 of IPC. It has been further submitted that, as a matter of fact, private complaint against the petitioner(s) is a counterblast to the action taken by the police for his acts and conduct leading to registration of case and presentation of Kalandra against him. 4. Cognizance taken by the Magistrate has been assailed mainly on the ground that petitioners were performing their official duty and the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the case against them, in view of provisions of Section 197 of Cr.P.C., without sanction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that co-accused Anjum Ara, Superintendent of Police had also filed a similar petition bearing Cr.MMO No. 468 of 2017, Anjum Ara Vs. Prem Singh Tangania, which was decided by co-ordinate Bench on 8.7.2019, whereby, after taking into consideration judgments passed by the Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Bihar and others, (2006) 1 SCC 557 ; and General Officer Commanding Rashtriya Rifles Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2012) 6 SCC 228 coupled with provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C., proceedings against Anjum Ara have been ordered to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon judgment passed by Supreme Court in D. Devaraja Vs. Owias Sabeer Hussain, Criminal Appeal No. 458 of 2020, decided on 18th June, 2020 to substantiate the plea raised on behalf of the petitioners. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon judgment passed by Supreme Court in D. Devaraja Vs. Owias Sabeer Hussain, Criminal Appeal No. 458 of 2020, decided on 18th June, 2020 to substantiate the plea raised on behalf of the petitioners. 6. Undisputedly, the aforesaid order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.MMO No. 468 of 2017, has not been further assailed, rather has been accepted by respondent/complainant. 7. Petitioners allegedly having committed the offence while acting in discharge of their official duty. Mrs.Anjum Ara and present petitioners, being officials of the Government are at the same footings and thus findings returned by co-ordinate Bench with respect to the same incident, which have not been assailed, squarely cover present case also. Therefore, Judicial Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence alleged against them, except with previous sanction of competent authority under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. 8. In view of above observation, petition is allowed and criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioners vide private complaint case No. 28/2 of 2017, titled Prem Singh Tangania Vs. Anjum Ara, pending before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Solan, are quashed. The petitions stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.