Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. - (1.) THE instant cr. misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 15.9.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Bikaner in Cr. Misc. Complaint No. 112/2012 (Mangi Lal v. Smt. Geeta Devi & Ors) whereby the learned court while declining to accept the preliminary inquiry issued direction to register an FIR against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 13(1)(D), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.
(2.) AS per the facts of the case, all the petitioners are working at different places on their respective posts in the State and they are challenging the validity of the order dated 15.6.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge -cum -Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Bikaner in Cr. Misc. Case No. 112/2012 by which the learned trial court while declining to accept the preliminary inquiry report NO.202 submitted by the ACD gave directions to the Anti Corruption Bureau for registration of FIR against the petitioners for offence under Sections 13(1)(C)(D) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988 and under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. The respondent complainant Mangi Lal filed a complaint against the petitioners as well as Smt. Geeta Devi wherein it was alleged that Smt. Geeta Devi has purchased a land from Nema Ram S/o Jeevan Ram Mali situated at revenue village Kismidesar, Tehsil Bikaner in Khasra NO.370/224 measuring 429.0 sq.yard. As per the allegation after purchasing the above land, Smt. Geeta Devi submitted an application for regularizing her possession before UIT, Bikaner and in pursuance of her application, a report was called from the concerned Patwari, Gangashahar, Bikaner, who in turn submitted its report stating therein that the land in question is not the same land and it belongs to some other Khatedars Koja Ram, Bajrang, Gangali etc. of village Kismidesar. Upon complaint submitted by the complainant, a criminal misc. case No. 112/2012 was registered and the learned Judge, Anti Corruption Bureau directed Anti Corruption officials to conduct preliminary inquiry in the case and in pursuance thereof, preliminary inquiry No. 202/2012 was registered by the ACB. After thorough investigation, the investigating agency submitted its report on 6.6.2013 before the Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Bikaner in which it is stated that no offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioners.
(3.) AS per the contention of the petitioner although no offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioners, but upon complaint of the respondent No. 2, the learned trial court without considering the report in any manner and without presence of the complainant or his lawyer, passed an order whereby issue direction to ACB to register FIR against the petitioners vide order dated 14.6.2013.The petitioners are challenging validity of the order on the ground that the petitioners are government servants and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Presiding Officer can proceed in the preliminary inquiry submitted by the investigating officer, but in no manner, the court can direct the investigating agency to register the FIR, but in this case, the learned trial court without even considering the report of the investigating agency issued directions to register an FIR against the petitioners in spite of the fact that for registration of the FIR against the government employee the previous sanction of the government is necessary. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case Anil Kumar & Ors. v. M.K. Aiyappa & Anr. reported in : 2013 R.Cr.D. 690 (SC) and submits that order of investigation and registration of the FIR without sanction in an anti corruption case against the public servants that to without considering the report of preliminary inquiry, is illegal, so also, Magistrate while exercising his powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. cannot act in a mechanical or casual manner and to go with the complainant after getting report, therefore, the order of registration of the FIR may kindly be quashed because no sanction is obtained for registration of the FIR.;