IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32994 of 2007 PRANAV KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 8 7.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. No one appears on behalf of Opposite party no.2. The petitioner prays for quashing the entire proceeding in Complaint Case No.3169(C) of 2005 including the order dated 1.6.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patna whereby he has taken cognizance of offence under sections 406, 504, 420/34 of the Penal Code. The petitioner was Senior Superintendent in the Postal Department. The petitioner states that earlier a complaint has been filed against the Opposite party no.2 for forging signature of Postal Department wherein a sum of Rs.13 lacs was encashed. In such circumstances, the petitioner issued office order dated 18.11.2004 that Opposite party would not remove the f an installed by him in the office. The Opposite party no.2 has filed a complaint petition substantially on account of the aforesaid grievance. The Opposite party in the complaint petition admits that criminal case was filed against him bearing Jakkanpur P.S. Case No.232 of 2004 under sections 467, 468, 471, 480/34 of the Penal Code. It appears that the office order dated 18.11.2004 passed by the petitioner is an administrative order and if the Opposite party no.2 had any grievance he could have moved the 2 KHAN higher authorities against the same. Further more, the aforesaid office order was issued in discharge of his official function as embezzlement case is pending against the Opposite party no.2. In such circumstances, the case could not have proceeded against the petitioner without appropriate sanction of the concerned authorities. As such the impugned order dated 1.6.2006 taking cognizance of offence under sections 406, 504, 420/34 of the Penal Code and summoning the petitioner to face trial is set aside for want of sanction. For the reasons stated above, this application is allowed. (S.P.Singh,J)