IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9111 of 2008 SURENDRA PRASAD ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. SAYYED ALAM (ADVOCATE) ---OPP.PARTIES. ----------- 04 23.07.2010 Let it be recorded that in spite of service of notice on opposite party no.2 nobody has turned up on his behalf to oppose the present application. While pressing this application it is submitted that in some what identical circumstance another police case was instituted which was called in question before this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 17289 of 2007, which has been considered and allowed by this Court. The order taking cognizance in the said case has been interfered with and quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner handed in a copy of the order dated 05.11.2007, passed in Cr. Misc. no. 17289 of 2007 (Surendra Prasad vs. State of Bihar & Anrs.) which is kept on record marked ‘X’. The facts of the case are similar/identical as in the case in hand. The allegation is that the complainant approached the petitioner ( Halka Karamchari) to know about the progress of the application filed on behalf of his mother for mutating her names. Petitioner is said to have demanded illegal gratification and when the same was not paid the allegation is that he was abused and the golden chain was snatched. It is the contention of the petitioner that admittedly 2 no sanction has been obtained prior to filing of complaint and/or the impugned order. It is next contended that the occurrence, as per prosecution case, has taken place on 07.05.2003 whereas the present order has been passed on 02.04.2005 i.e. after expiry of close to 02 years. It is the contention of the petitioner that present complaint is actuated with malice. Learned A.P.P. on the other hand submitted that there appears to be some difference so far as the present case and the case made out in Cr. Misc. no.17289 of 2007 is concerned. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. A perusal of order dated 05.11.2007 passed in Cr. Misc. no. 17289 of 2007 would show that the contention of the petitioner that he was in the Government employment and was, according to allegation acting in discharge of his official duty and such sanction is necessary found favour with this Court. In the light of said submission the order was quashed. This Court, in view of the findings recorded in Cr. Misc. no. 17289 of 2007 (Surendra Prasad vs. State of Bihar & Anrs.), is also inclined to interfere with the present order. Consequently the application is allowed. Order dated 02.04.2005 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram, in complaint case no. 463 of 2003 is hereby quashed and set aside. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)