IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42672 of 2007 1. RAKHI KUMARI KHESARI WIFE OF ASUTOSH SINGH R/O- MANGLA GAURI ROAD, CIVIL LINES, GAYA, PRESENTLY WORKING AS A CIRCLE OFFICER, SONEPUR ANCHAL, P.S.- SONEPUR, DISTT. SARAN. 2. JAGDISH NARAYAN S/O- LATE RAM DAYAL RAM, R/O- VILLAGE- HEMATPUR, P.S.- DIGHWARA DISTRICT- SARAN AT PRESENT WORKIGN AS A CIRCLE INSPECTOR, SONEPUR ANCHAL, SONEPUR, DISTRICT- SARAN. 3. MAHANT RAM SON OF LATE RAM GOBIND RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AGORA, P.S.- BASDIH ROAD, DISTRICT- BALIA, U.P. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SMT. RENU DEVI W/O- BRAHMDEO HAZRA @ RAMAYAN HAZRA, R/O- VILLAGE- FAKRABAD, P.S.- SONEPUR, DISTRICT- SARAN. For the petitioners : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the O.P. : Mr. Arvind Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 3 19.08.2010 Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the impugned order, submits that petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3, during the relevant time, were acting as officers of the State. They were discharging their duties as assigned to them. It is thus contended that the order taking cognizance without sanction is bad in law. Law is well settled. If it is found by the court trying the matter that the allegations are such which require sanction, the Court will stay the proceeding at that stage and will call upon the prosecutor/complainant to obtain sanction from the appropriate authority. The order taking cognizance, for the aforesaid reasons, cannot be questioned and/or interfered with. This Court, therefore, declines to interfere with the order impugned. The application is accordingly disposed of. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )