Judgment Chaudhary Sia Saran Sinha, J. 1. After describing the order dated 20-11-1978 (Annexure 2), (hereinafter referred to as, the impugned order)as illegal and without jurisdiction, the petitioner who is a Subdivisional officer. Rohtas Sadar, has sought for the quashing of the criminal proceeding initiated against him in Complaint Case no.493 of 1978, Nagendra Nath sinha v, S. S. Sinha macrand, pending in the court of Shri S. N. Mahto, judicial Magistrate at Sassaram. 2. Oppisite-party No.2 of this application, who filed the instant complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sassaram, and one Shri kamal Bahadur were, the two contestants for the post of chairmanship of sassam Municipality. This gave rise to the decision as to who should be a successful candidate by lots, as Rule 70 of the Bihar Municipal Elections and election Petitions Rules, 1953 (hereinafter referred to "the Rules". This Rule further provides that if the number of votes recorded for each of the candidates who obtain the least number of votes is equal, one of those candidates shall be eliminated by drawing lots in such manner as the Returning Officer may determine. Instead of deciding the lot by tossing the coin, the petitioner decided the same by means of slips, as referred to in the petition at page 3, in which Shri Kamal Bahadur was declared as elected. It is in this background that the unsuccessful candidates, Shri Nagendra Nath Sinha, filed the instant complaint against the petitioner, who in his capacity as sub Divisional Officer acted as the Returning Officer for the said election alleging offences under Sections 166 and 167 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. On receipt of the complaint, the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the case was transferred by him to one Shri S. N. Mahto, Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram, under section 192 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for enquiry and trial and he ordered for the records being put up to him on 6-12-1978. Before the records could be put up before Sri S. N. Mahto, on 5-12-197s itself the petitioner rushed to this Court and filed the instant application under Sec.482 of the Code, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against him. 4. Before the records could be put up before Sri S. N. Mahto, on 5-12-197s itself the petitioner rushed to this Court and filed the instant application under Sec.482 of the Code, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against him. 4. Shri Prabha Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised four contentions The first was that before passing the impugned order the Chief Judicial Magistrate had not applied his judicial mind and thus the order for transfer of the case is wrong. The second contention was that the transfer of the case under Sec.192 (1) of the Code for enquiry was illegal and in the alternative that even if that was legally possible, the report of enquiry held by the transferee Magistrate had to be submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The third contention of Shri mishra was that the allegations in the complaint petition did not constitute the offences alleged and lastly that the prosecution of the petitioner without obtaining sanction under Sec.197 of the Code was illegal While refusing these contentions, Shri Gorakh Nath Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, seriously contended that this application was premature, the impugned order, being interlocutory in nature, and revision against any such order being barred under the provisions of sub- section (2) of Sec.397 of the Code, it was not a fit case for invoking the inherent powers of this Court at this stage According to Shri Singh, the appropriate stage for the petitioner to move this court under Sec.482 of the Code would be after Sri S. N. Mahto passed order, if any for issue of processes against the petitioner. I shall first take up the last contention raised by Shri gorakh Nath Singly namely, the maintainability of this application at this stage. 5. In the instant case the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance merely for the initiation of the proceeding and left the question of issue of the processes against the petitioner for decision by the transferee Magistrate, such an order cannot but be regarded as interlocutory and it would attract the provision of sub-section (2) of Sec.397 of the Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on certain observations of the Supreme court in the case of Madhu Limaye V/s. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47 . Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on certain observations of the Supreme court in the case of Madhu Limaye V/s. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47 . But it would suffice to say that the facts of the instant case are different from the facts of the case before the Supreme Court inasmuch as in the case before the Supreme Court after taking cognizance of the offence processes were ordered to be issued, against the appellant of that case. 6. A question arises whether in a case of this nature where a revision against the impugned order is barred, this court would be justified in invoking its inherent power in quashing the initiation of the proceeding as ordered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Sec.482 of the Code at this stage. The facts and the circumstances of this case warrant a reply in the negative. If the transferee Magistrate would decide to issue processes against the petitioner in spite of the alleged infirmities rn the prosecution case. It will be clearly open to the petitioner to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of his court to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. The contention raised by Sri Singh must therefore prevail and the application of the petitioner must fail at this stage on this score alone. 7. The impugned order shows that the Chief Judicial Magistrate applied his judicial mind to the facts as presented in the petition of complaint and statement on solemn affirmation and he has thus complied with the requirement of Sec.192 (1) of the Code and thus the contention of sri Mishra that the order transferring the case is wrong must fail. There is no merit in the second contention of Sri Mishra as well. Sec.192 (1)of the Code fully authorises the Chief Judicial Magistrate to make over the case" for enquiry or trial. The alternative contention of Shri Mishra in this respect is equally untenable. Where a case is transferred under section 192 (1) of the Code, the case is entirely out of the hands of the transferring Magistrate and he ceases to have any jurisdiction in the case so long as the transfer is in existence. The transferee Magistrate is vested with full seisin of the case and he stands in the shoes of the original magistrate and has full authority to deal with the case. The transferee Magistrate is vested with full seisin of the case and he stands in the shoes of the original magistrate and has full authority to deal with the case. 8. In view of the finding, recorded above, it may not be necessary to decide the other two contentions raised by Shri Prabha Shankar Mishra, at this stage. I must, however, observe for the guidance of the transferee magistrate that to attract the mischief of Sec.166 of the Indian Penal code the alleged offender must, inter alia, knowingly disobey the direction of law and that too with the intention to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he wilt, by such disobedience, cause injury to any person. To attract the mischief of Sec.167 of the Indian Penal Code, the public servant proceeded against must have the charge of the preparation or translation of a document in his capacity as a public servant and he must frame or translate it in an incorrect manner and that too knowing or believing that he was incorrectly framing or translating the same and above all he must be shown to have done so with the intent or with the knowledge that it was likely that he would thereby cause injury. The question whether the petitioner can be proceeded against without the sanction obtained under section 197 is again a setious matter that the transferee Magistrate has to consider and decide before ordering for issue of processes against the petitioner. 9. Subject to the observations made above this application fails and is dismissed. Application dismissed.