JUDGMENT : RAKIQ, J. This is an application in revision under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the order of the Joint Magistrate of Meerut apparently made under section 495 of the Code of Criminal procedure. The facts which led to the making of the order complained of are as follows:—One Umrao applied for and obtained sanction to prosecute the applicant, Mahant Darshan Dass, on the charge of perjury. The sanction was granted to Umrao on February 26, 1912. He filed a complaint on July 20, 1912, and six witnesses were examined in support of it. On December 13, 1912, one Atma Ram presented an application to the trying Magistrate asking for permission to continue the prosecution of the Mahant on the ground that Umrao had colluded with the Mahant. The same day Mahant Darshan Das filed a petition stating that Umrao was unwilling to continue the prosecution, and that the application of Atma Ram be rejected. Umrao was absent from court on that day. The learned Magistrate wrote the order “file” on the application of the Mahant. The application of Atma Ram was granted on December 21, 1912. The present application for revision is in respect of the latter order. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that though the language of section 495 of the Criminal Procedure Code is very wide, yet no permission should have been granted to Atma Ram to continue the prosecution, inasmuch as he is, admittedly, not on good terms with the applicant. He is seeking by a civil suit to oust the Mahant from his gaddi and is anxious to continue the prosecution against the latter to create evidence for the civil suit and to harass him. It is further said that no sanction to prosecute the applicant under section 193 would have been allowed to Atma Ram for the reason that he (Atma Ram) would have used the sanction for his private ends, and if he could not obtain sanction to prosecute, he was not a proper person to be permitted to continue the prosecution. I think that the contention of the applicant must be allowed. I think that the contention of the applicant must be allowed. It is doubtful whether the words “any person” in section 495 of the Code would include an absolute stranger who had no connection in the remotest degree with the prosecution and whose desire to help the prosecution was based on a personal grudge only. It has been held by this Court that it is inexpedient to grant sanction to prosecute under section 195 when the person obtaining sanction might use it for the purpose of harassing his opponent. Nazir Husain v. Dost Mohammad, [1903] I.L.R., 26 All., 1; Moti Ravi v. Niadar Mal, [1903] A.W.N., 170. 2. I set aside the order of the learned Magistrate dated December 21, 1912, and direct him to dispose of the case according to law.