JUDGMENT : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jain, J. - The aforesaid three appeals were preferred aggrieved from order of cognizance dated 24.6.2022 in matter arising out of protest petition No. 182/2022 related F.R. number 88/2012 in FIR No. 126/2012 Police Station, Ramganj, Jaipur city (North). In all appeals, the order of cognizance dated 24.6.2022 is under challenge, therefore, we are disposing of all the appeals by a common order. 2. Learned Counsel for appellant submitted that on complaint of Ravi Vaswani an F.I.R. No. 37/2012 in Police Station Ramganj was registered under Sections 420, 406 and 384 I PC, wherein after conducting investigation, a charge-sheet was drawn and filed before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur Metropolitan. He further submitted that FIR was registered on 4.2.2012 whereas charge-sheet was filed on 12.2.2012 against respondent/ complainant of present matter. It is submitted that after release on ball, a criminal complaint under Section 190(1) Cr.P.C. was filed on 20.4.2022 by respondent complainant before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur Metropolitan, which was sent to Police Station Ramganj for registration under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. It is submitted that on the basis of this complaint an F.I.R. No. 126/2012 under Sections 323, 325, 342, 330, 452, 166 and 316 IPC and Section 3 of SC/ST (POA) Act was registered. He further submitted that after a detailed investigation F.R. (closure report) was proposed and submitted to concerned Court. While referring the reasons of F.R., it is submitted that allegations made by respondent/complainant were found to be totally false and none of such allegation was found proved. He further submitted that one of the allegation on appellants were that due to assault by appellants, the wife of respondent/complainant suffered injuries resulting into miscarriage during pregnancy. He referred the report dated 25.5.2012 Issued by Health Line Hospital to submit that no complaint of assault was reported at the time of examination by the gynecologist. He further submitted that appellants were in duty of police on alleged date of incident they were performing the duties in accordance with law. He referred the report dated 25.5.2012 Issued by Health Line Hospital to submit that no complaint of assault was reported at the time of examination by the gynecologist. He further submitted that appellants were in duty of police on alleged date of incident they were performing the duties in accordance with law. He further submitted that Trial Court has failed to assign the reasons to discredit the F.R. While referring the reasons given by police at the time of proposing final closure report, it has been submitted that Trial Court without considering total circumstances available on record had proceeded to take cognizance merely on the basis of unverified statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that as per allegation, complainant/ respondent was arrested in FIR No. 37/2012, and he was produced before learned Magistrate, but he never raised any grievance against Police officials or present appellants. Even after release on bail, he did not prefer to file report against appellants which indicated that present complaint was motivated as it was filed after a substantial delay. He submitted that appellants are Government servants entitled for protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C., therefore, referring and relying upon the statements and reasons as given by Investigating Officer while proposing F.R. in F.L.R. No. 126/2012, would submitted that there was no occasion to take cognizance against present appellants, but Trial Court had proceeded to take cognizance on the basis of surmises and conjectures, which is bad in eye of law. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and also learned Counsel for respondent/complainant. 4. Learned Counsel for respondent/complainant submitted that in F.I.R No. 37/2012 when respondent was arrested and subjected to torture, the entire occurrence was recorded in CCTV but same was destroyed by police. He further submitted that the appellants are police personnel and it is very difficult to raise complaint against them, but after gathering confidence upon release from custody in FLR No. 12/2012 Police Station, Ramganj respondent/complainant had filed the instant complaint before learned Trial Court which was sent to very same Police Station, Ramganj but it was registered after a substantial delay. He further submitted that there was enough evidence on record to Indicate that appellants were involved in harassing and torturing complainant/respondent and his wife which resulted into miscarriage of his wife. He further submitted that there was enough evidence on record to Indicate that appellants were involved in harassing and torturing complainant/respondent and his wife which resulted into miscarriage of his wife. He further relied upon judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of P.P. Unnikrishnan v. Puttiyottil Alikutty, reported in (2000) 8 SCC 131 and submitted that during custody, if anything wrong is committed which is beyond the ambit of public duty then sanction is not required and protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not available to police personnel. He further referred the evidence available on record specifically the statement of complainant and other witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., on the basis of which learned Trial Court had proceeded to take cognizance. He further submitted that CD of CCTV footage was, filed before learned Trial Court and same was available on record to establish linkage of appellants with Ravi Vaswani. He further submitted that in FIR No. 12/2012 Police Station, Ramganj, respondent was discharged on 18.7.2016 by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 10, Jaipur Metropolitan in criminal revision number 193/2015, therefore, no case wherein respondent/ complainant was arrested and subjected to torture was made out. He further submitted that the grounds raised by appellants could be considered by Trial Court during trial and appellants could take as defence before the Trial Court He further submitted that reasons given by Investigating Officer while proposing final report in F.I.R. No. 126/2012 were well considered by learned Trial Court and same were produced in order dated 24.6.2022 as well. At last, he submitted that no case of interference was made out, therefore, prayed for dismissal of appeals. 5. Heard learned Counsel for appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for respondent/complainant and perused the material available on record. 6. The fact of the matter is that one Ravi Vaswani had registered an F.I.R.: No. 37/2012 wherein respondent/complainant Hansraj was arrested on 4.2.2012 but after investigation, police had drawn a charge-sheet on 12.2.2012 under Sections 420, 406 and 384 IPC. The record further indicated that from this report criminal case No. 790/2015 was registered and on 20.7.2015 when learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 11, Jaipur Metropolitan had framed charges then same were challenged by way of revision. The record further indicated that from this report criminal case No. 790/2015 was registered and on 20.7.2015 when learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 11, Jaipur Metropolitan had framed charges then same were challenged by way of revision. Revision petition No. 193/2015 was allowed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 10, Jaipur Metropolitan on 18.7.2016 and complainant/respondent Hansraj was discharged from offences under Sections 420, 406, 384 IPC. Thus, the matter arising out of FIR No. 37/2012 Police Station Ramganj stood closed on discharge of respondent complainant. 7. After being released in aforesaid F.I.R. No. 37/2012, a criminal complaint was filed on 20.4.2012, wherein, F.I.R. No. 126/2012 was registered and after a detailed investigation, a final closure report was proposed on 31.12.2012 wherein the complaint was found to be false. While proposing the final closure report, several reasons were also supplied by the Investigating Officer. It was further mentioned that there was no independent witness to support the case of respondent/complainant. After this final closure report, respondent/ complainant filed a protest petition and was also examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. whereas statement of four other witnesses including wife of respondent under Section 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded and after considering the entirety of the material available, impugned order was passed. 8. In present matter, one of the contentions was delay in reporting matter by way of criminal complaint. That fact, that in criminal complaint, the allegation clearly indicated that respondent/Complainant had lend certain money to Ravi Vaswani but Ravi Vaswani instead of returning money preferred to register an F.I.R No. 37/2012 at Police Station, Ramganj wherein respondent/complainant was arrested who was finally discharged. No doubt, there was delay in filing complaint and in further registration of case, beyond control of complainant. The question which falls for consideration is besides the remedy of malicious prosecution under law of torts, what are the other remedies available to respondent complainant upon being arrested on an F.I.R., in due process of law. The remedy always cannot be considered from point of view of filing counter criminal case for alleged torture or high handedness. It is trite that whenever there is an instance of encountering atrocity, harassment or torture in police custody, a complaint can definitely be raised to that effect which has to be based on true facts and not in colored manner. It is trite that whenever there is an instance of encountering atrocity, harassment or torture in police custody, a complaint can definitely be raised to that effect which has to be based on true facts and not in colored manner. Herein, it appears that after the filing of criminal complaint by complainant respondent, same was sent for registration of case under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. After registration of case at F.I.R. No. 126/2012, same was investigated by an officer having rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, and during investigation, he collected several documents and also assigned the reasons for proposing final closure report, which clearly indicates that there was a civil dispute between complainant and Ravi Vaswani but the police had favourably acted on complaint of Ravi Vaswani to benefit him in F.I.R. No. 37/2012. 9. Herein, all the appellants are public servants and Section 197 Cr.P.C. clearly provides protection to a Government servant while acting as a public servant and discharging public duty. The allegation in present complaint itself clearly indicates that on 4.2.2021 on call from Ravi Vaswani when complainant visited Suraj Pol Gate, he was detained by present appellants and they have not only insulted him but also tortured and assaulted him. The record indicated that complainant was detained and arrested in pursuant to F.I.R. No. 37/2012 registered by Ravi Vaswani. Therefore, in any case appellants were performing duty then the question of exceeding the duty without taking due care can be considered when the complaint is raised at proper stage. Herein, the allegation-in aforesaid F.I.R. No. 37/2012 involves cognizable and non-bailable offence though as per principle as laid down in case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 the arrest of Hansraj was not justified, the respondent complainant produced before learned Magistrate for remand, wherein complainant/respondent was required to raise aforesaid facts before the Magistrate (on first available earliest occasion), but it appears that no such grievance was raised when respondent complainant was produced before any Magistrate for remand, therefore, appellants who are public servants are entitled for protection under Section 197 Cr.PC, as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case of B. Saha and Ors. v. M.S. Kochar, (1979) 4 SCC 177 and D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain, (2020) 7 SCC 695 . 10. v. M.S. Kochar, (1979) 4 SCC 177 and D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain, (2020) 7 SCC 695 . 10. Herein, appellants in all three matters are police personnel and they have taken the plea of protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. Therefore, Trial Court ought to have considered the protection available to public servant under Section 197 Cr.P.C., before proceeding to take cognizance, but Trial Court has failed to consider aforesaid aspect. 11. The civil dispute was between Ravi Vaswani and present respondent complainant and not with present appellants. The certificate of Health Line Hospital clearly indicates that if any miscarriage occurred, then it was not due to any assault. No other document contradicting this document was produced on record by respondent/complainant. Therefore, the certificate as collected by police during investigation had to be relied upon. The fact of the matter is that during production before learned Magistrate in F.I.R. No. 37/2012, no documents relating to reported Injuries we on record. Therefore, it cannot be presumed, that from 4.2.2012 on wards until release of respondent complainant, he was subjected to torture by present appellants in F.I.R. No. 37/2012. Therefore, Trial Court while Ignoring the reasons proposed in FR with respect to present appellants, have proceeded on the basis of oral statements of witnesses produced under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. It was duty of learned Trial Court to consider each and every fact as placed in negative final/closure report before proceeding to take cognizance under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. Learned Trial Court was also under obligation to notice the fact that primarily it was duty of police to investigate in cognizable offence and to submit report. Learned Trial Court was not obliged to accept or concur in the negative report hut while proceeding otherwise at least each and every material collected during investigation is required to be considered while disagreeing with negative report one has to satisfy with probative value of material submitted by complainant and same is enough to Inspire confidence of Court or not. Hence, herein Trial Court has committed error in taking cognizance against present appellants. 12. In view of aforesaid, the order of cognizance qua the present appellants is bad in the eye of law and the appeals deserve to be allowed. Hence, herein Trial Court has committed error in taking cognizance against present appellants. 12. In view of aforesaid, the order of cognizance qua the present appellants is bad in the eye of law and the appeals deserve to be allowed. Thus, In view of aforesaid discussion present appeals preferred by appellants against impugned order dated 24.6.2022 are hereby allowed and order dated 24.6.2022 is set aside qua present appellants in S.B. Criminal Appeal Nos. 889/2023, 987/2023 and 988/2023. All appellants in aforesaid appeals are discharged. By Impugned order, learned Trial Court had proceeded to take cognizance against other private individuals, therefore, none of aforesaid observations will affect any case with respect to other private individuals, summoned by very same order. Misc. application(s), if any, stands disposed of.