Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Ex-Parte Revision Order Against Navy Officer, Rules Registered Post Notice Insufficient Under Rules of 2018

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that summons on Armed Forces personnel must be routed through their Commanding Officer, not sent by registered post, quashing an ex-parte Sessions Court order and the cognizance that followed from it.

The Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur, has quashed an ex-parte order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, which had set aside a Magistrate's refusal to take cognizance against a serving Navy officer and remanded the matter for fresh orders. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, sitting singly, held that the Revisional Court committed a fundamental error by treating a postal tracking report as proof of sufficient service on the officer, who was posted at Port Blair at the relevant time. The bench found that Order 31 Rule 5 of the General Rules (Civil & Criminal), 2018 mandates that process against Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen must be sent to their Commanding Officer — a step the Revisional Court entirely skipped. As a direct consequence, the cognizance order subsequently passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate against the petitioner was also set aside.

The FIR, the Charge-Sheet Gap, and the Complainant's Revision

FIR No. 113/2017 was registered at Police Station Mahila Thana (North), Jaipur against the petitioner, Dhananjay Kumar, and co-accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 354, 377 and 120B IPC. The complainant is Parul Mishra, wife of Lieutenant Colonel Mrityunjay Kumar Mishra.

After investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against three accused — Ratan Kumar, Sangeeta, and Mrityunjay — but not against the petitioner. Metropolitan Magistrate No. 13, Jaipur Metropolitan, took cognizance against Ratan Kumar and Sangeeta for offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC, and against Mrityunjay for Sections 498A, 406, 321 and 323 IPC. The petitioner was left out entirely.

The complainant then filed an application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. seeking cognizance against the petitioner as well. The Magistrate rejected that application on 8 November 2019. Aggrieved, the complainant carried the matter in revision before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan-I.

The Revisional Court issued notices to the petitioner by registered post. On the basis of a tracking report from the Department of Post, it treated service as complete. The petitioner, however, contended that he never actually received any notice. The revision was decided ex-parte on 11 May 2023: the Sessions Court allowed it, quashed the Magistrate's order dated 8 November 2019, and remanded the matter for fresh orders on cognizance. Acting on that remand, the Metropolitan Magistrate subsequently took cognizance against the petitioner.

The Mandatory Mechanism Under Order 31 Rule 5 of the Rules of 2018

Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioner argued that the Code of Criminal Procedure contains no provision for effecting service by registered post and that summons must be issued in accordance with Section 68 Cr.P.C. More specifically, counsel pointed to Order 31 Rule 5 of the General Rules (Civil & Criminal), 2018, which lays down a dedicated procedure for serving process on Armed Forces personnel.

The provision reads: “Process of officer, soldier, sailor or airman, shall be sent for service to his Commanding Officer, together with a copy to be retained by the person concerned, in such cases, sufficient time shall be given to make arrangements for relieving the concerned person.”

Counsel for the complainant-respondent did not contest this position. The respondent's counsel expressly supported the petitioner's objection on the question of service upon Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen under Order 31 Rule 5 of the Rules of 2018.

Justice Dhand reproduced the provision and analysed its content. The bench observed that the rule imposes a mandatory obligation on the Presiding Officer to send summons to the Commanding Officer of the concerned Armed Forces personnel, along with a copy for the individual to retain. The rationale, the bench noted, is straightforward: sufficient time must be given to make necessary arrangements for relieving the person from operational duties.

The court relied on its earlier order in Deevan Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., decided in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 104/2025 on 10 October 2025, which had addressed the same question.

Why the Ex-Parte Order Could Not Stand

Justice Dhand recorded several undisputed facts: the petitioner was posted as a Lieutenant Commander in the Indian Navy at Port Blair when the Revisional Court issued notices; the revision was decided ex-parte; and the notices were sent by registered post, not through the Commanding Officer.

The bench held that the notices had not been sent to the petitioner in terms of the statutory and mandatory provisions of Order 31 Rule 5 of the Rules of 2018. On that ground alone, the impugned order dated 11 May 2023 was found unsustainable and was quashed and set aside.

The court then addressed the downstream consequence. It noted that after the Revisional Court's order of 11 May 2023, the Metropolitan Magistrate No. 13 had taken cognizance against the petitioner. Since the original revision order had been set aside, the cognizance order passed by the lower court against the petitioner automatically stood set aside as well.

Directions for the Remand Proceedings

The matter was remitted to the Revisional Court — the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan-I — for a fresh order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Recognising that the petitioner is a serving naval officer, the bench gave specific directions to ease his participation. Since the petitioner is now aware of the revision petition pending against him, he was directed to place a copy of the High Court's order before his Commanding Officer and seek permission to appear before the Revisional Court through counsel. Physical presence of the petitioner was held to be unnecessary for raising arguments. The bench expressed the expectation that the Commanding Officer would pass appropriate orders permitting the petitioner to appear through counsel or through video conferencing.

The Revisional Court was also directed to pass its fresh order without being influenced by its earlier order dated 11 May 2023.

Given that the matter traces back to FIR No. 113/2017 and nearly nine years have elapsed, the bench directed the Revisional Court to decide the revision petition expeditiously, preferably within six months.

Order

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4439/2023 was disposed of on 20 May 2026. The impugned order dated 11 May 2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan-I was quashed and set aside. The cognizance order subsequently passed by Metropolitan Magistrate No. 13 against the petitioner was held to have automatically fallen with the revision order. The matter was remitted to the Revisional Court for fresh proceedings in accordance with the directions above.