IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.57470 of 2007 SRI BHAGWAN SINGH 'ADVOCATE', S/O LATE RAGHO SINGH .. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. JITENDRA KUMAR JHA, THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER- CUM-CIRCLE OFFICER, OBARA, AURANGABAD 3. BIGAN YADAV, S/O LATE BHAJAN YADAV 4. SARJU YADAV, S/O BIGAN YADAV 5. AJHUN LAL, S/O FIRANGI LAL 6. DHANUSHDHARI CHOUDHARY, S/O NARSINGH CHOUDHARY 7. KUNTI DEVI, W/O DHANUSHDHARI CHOUDHARY 8. INDRADEO YADAV, S/O LATE JHAPASI YADAV 9. SANJAY YADAV, S/O INDRADEO YADAV 10. RANJAN YADAV, S/O INDRADEO YADAV .. OPPOSITE PARTIES **** /2/ 02.04.2010 Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. This application is directed for quashing the order, dated 07.04.2007, passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, by which he has directed the complainant to bring the sanction order against the accused Jitendra Kumar Jha, the Block Development Officer-cum-Circle Officer, Obara, Aurangabad. From the order itself it appears that the accused persons was constructing road and it is alleged that accused persons came and started cutting the earth from the land to which the complainant protested. It is alleged that the complainant informed the Circle Officer passed order to maintain 2 status quo, but, latter at the instance of other accused person ordered to construct the road. The complainant filed information to the Officer-in-Charge, Obara, and the Officer-in- Charge got the work stopped by sending the police force and the Circle Officer ordered for construction of the road. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that the allegation made against the petitioner is not with regard to his duty in official capacity, hence, no sanction order. Further, in the complaint petition it is apparent that the matter was with regard to the construction of the road and the Block Development Officer passed the order in the official capacity and, hence, the allegation made is with regard to the discharge of official duty against the Block Development Officer then a sanction order is required for prosecution and, hence, I do not find any illegality with the impugned order in accordance with law. 3. With these observations and directions, this application is disposed off. S.A. ( Gopal Prasad, J. )