ORDER 1. By way of instant petition preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.03.2022 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sumerpur, District Pali (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') whereby, while refusing to take cognizance against the petitioner for want of prosecution sanction, the trial Court has directed the Investigating Officer to undertake necessary steps for obtaining the prosecution sanction. 2. The facts precisely narrated are that an FIR was filed by respondent No.2 alleging that on account of negligent conduct of the petitioner, his wife died consequent to complications arising during and post tubectomy. 3. The Investigating Officer concluded investigation and filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner and requested the Court to take cognizance. 4. The trial Court refused to take cognizance against the petitioner per-viam order dated 28.03.2022 in face of the provisions contained in Section 197 of the Code. According to the trial Court, prosecution sanction is a sine qua non in case of the petitioner - government doctor who is a public servant. 5. So far as refusal to take cognizance in the face of provision of Section 197 of the Code is concerned, the petitioner is obviously not aggrieved. What concerns the petitioner is, the direction issued by the trial Court to the Investigating Officer to obtain prosecution sanction. 6. Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Court cannot issue direction or guide the Investigating Officer as to what steps are to be taken; it is the mandate of law which he has to follow and abide by. In other words, learned counsel for the petitioner's contention has been that such direction issued by the learned Magistrate is beyond his jurisdiction. In support of his contention aforesaid, Mr. Shah relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Ranveer Singh Punia Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2017(1) Cr.L.R (Raj.) 247, particularly on para No.12 thereof. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand argued that the stipulation made by the trial Court is just a suggestion and the same be not treated to be a direction. He argued that the Investigating Officer, in any case apply for or request for prosecution sanction and thus, no interference in warranted in the present case. 8. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand argued that the stipulation made by the trial Court is just a suggestion and the same be not treated to be a direction. He argued that the Investigating Officer, in any case apply for or request for prosecution sanction and thus, no interference in warranted in the present case. 8. Having heard rival counsel and upon perusal of the order under consideration, this Court is of the firm opinion that while refusing to take cognizance for want of prosecution sanction envisaged under Section 197 of the Code, the trial Court cannot issue direction to the Investigating Officer to obtain prosecution sanction. The aforesaid view of this Court is fully fortified by the judgment of this Court in the case of Ranveer Singh (supra). The relevant portion whereof reads thus: "Strangely, in the instant case, though the learned Trial Court has acknowledged status of the 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." 9. In view of the aforesaid, the petition succeeds. The following part of the order dated 28.03.2022 is quashed and set aside:- ^^vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh dks funsZf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr ds laca/k esa vko';d dk;Zokgh dj rn~uqlkj dk;Zokgh djsaA^^ 10. Stay application also stands disposed of.