K. N. SHUKIA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh setting aside the order of discharge passed by C. J. M. and directing him to make further enquiry into the complaint and dispose it of according to law. ( 2 ) FUNDILAL (N. A. 3) filed a complaint under sections 326, 419, 420/511 I. P. C. against applicant Dr. R. N. Mishra and non applicant No. 2 Smt. Buti Sharma alleging that on 11. 8. 1980 his son Ramcharan had gone to the Primary Health Centre, Prithvipur, district Tikamgarh for treatment of a boil in the region of his scrotum. Smt. Buti Sharma said to be the motivator for family planning operations obtained Ramcharans signatures on some forms. When Ramcharan was brought before Dr. Mishra, the latter performed a vasectomy operation on him. Ramcharan was newly married and had no issue and the operation was performed on false misrepresentation. As a result of the operation, he was emasculated and became disabled for raising children. ( 3 ) LEARNED Magistrate after examining complainant Fundilal under section 200 Cr. P. C. directed investigation to be made by a police officer into the complaint. After receiving the result of the investigation, learned Magistrate issued process for appearance of the accused persons. After appearance of the accused some peculiar developments took place. Complainant Fundilal and Ramcharan submitted in writing before the Magistrate that they did not want to proceed with the complaint and the vasectomy operation was performed with the free consent of Ramcharan. This application is dated 2. 1. 1981. However, on 9. 1. 1981 another application accompanied by an affidavit was filed by Ramcharan that the earlier application for dismissal of the complaint had been given under coercion and threats and he did not want to withdraw the complain. ( 4 ) AGAIN, on 28. 1. 1981 a fresh application was filed by Ramcharan stating that on 9. 1. 1981 he had filed the application on the misrepresentation of Suryabhan Singh, Sanitary Inspector, Prithvipur, but in fact he did not want to proceed with the complaint and his operation was performed with his free consent. He submitted that the complaint may be dismissed. Learned Magistrate recorded the statements of complainant Fundilal and his son Ramcharan on oath. Thereafter by order dated 281. He submitted that the complaint may be dismissed. Learned Magistrate recorded the statements of complainant Fundilal and his son Ramcharan on oath. Thereafter by order dated 281. 1981 on the basis of the statements of Fundilal and Ramcharan he passed an order that no offence was made out against the accused person and they were entitled to be discharged under section 245 (2) Cr. P. C. ( 5 ) SANITARY Inspector Suryabhan Singh against whom allegations were made by Fundilal and Ramcharan in their application and statements dated 28. 1. 1981 filed a revision petition against the order of discharge in which he joined the State of Madhya Pradesh as well as complainant Fundilal as non-applicants. ( 6 ) THE perusal of the order sheets shows that on several hearings State Government as well as complainant Fundilal had appeared through counsel but no objection about the legality of the order passed by learned Magistrate was taken by either of them. There is nothing to indicate that complainant Fundilal himself or through his counsel had resiled from the statement given by him before the learned Magistrate In these circumstances learned Sessions Judge bad no material before him on the basis of which he made various observations in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the impugned order. It appears that learned Sessions Judge decided the revision non sentimental grounds and not on legal grounds because the material on record does not support his view that learned Magistrate acted in a manner which resulted in miscarriage of justice. ( 7 ) LEARNED Magistrate specifically mentioned in his order that he was acting under section 245 (2) Cr. P. C. After issuance of process and appearance of the accused when the case posted for consideration of the application of the applicant accused Dr. Mishra raisins an objection about sanction under Code IPC Cr. P. C. an application was filed on behalf of the complainant that he did not want to proceed with the complaint. On the next date of bearing learned Magistrate issued bailable warrants against complainant Fundilal and Ramcharan. This was unwarranted and learned Sessions Judge was justified in adversely commenting on the conduct of the proceedings so far. However, when on 28. 1. 1981 the complainant filed another application to the effect that he did not want to proceed with the complaint, learned Magistrate examined him and the alleged victim Ramcharan on oath. This was unwarranted and learned Sessions Judge was justified in adversely commenting on the conduct of the proceedings so far. However, when on 28. 1. 1981 the complainant filed another application to the effect that he did not want to proceed with the complaint, learned Magistrate examined him and the alleged victim Ramcharan on oath. After recording this statement there could be no reason whatsoever for the learned Magistrate to further enquire into the charge contained in the complaint. The suggestion of the learned Sessions Judge that the Magistrate ought to have made further enquiry is totally unwarranted because the procedure does not require a roving enquiry in the nature of an investigation by the Magistrate. The observation of the learned Sessions Judge that complainant Fundilal and his son might have been scared by the bailable warrants and therefore, must have come under the spell of the applicant is entirely conjectural and in any case when the Magistrate himself recorded the statements of Fundilal and Ramcharan, there was nothing left for him to do and he could not embark on a roving investigation. ( 8 ) I, therefore, bold that there was no justification on the part of the learned Sessions Judge to set aside the order of discharge passed by the learned Magistrate under section 245 (2) Cr. P. C. 9. Next question relates to the requirement of sanction under section 197 Cr. P. C. Perusal of the complaint and the statement of the complainant Fundilal under section 200 Cr. P. C clearly shows that the accusation against applicant Dr. Mishra was that he performed the vasectomy operation on the basis of the forms filled in by Buti Sharma (co-accused) and signed by Ramcharan. The vasectomy operation was performed by Dr. Mishra in the hospital in his capacity at Assistant Surgeon, Primary Health Centre. Prithvipur. The act alleged to have been committed by him was done while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty and therefore sanction under section 197 (1) Cr. P. C. was necessary before the Court could take cognizance of the offence against him. Learned Sessions Judge instead of disposing of this legal objection himself passed the buck to the trial Magistrate. P. C. was necessary before the Court could take cognizance of the offence against him. Learned Sessions Judge instead of disposing of this legal objection himself passed the buck to the trial Magistrate. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Suryabhan Singh who had moved the revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge cited Pukhraj v. State of Rajasthan and another and contended that question of sanction has to be examined on facts coming to light during the course of the trial, and whether sanction is necessary or not will depend from stage to stage. The case is clearly distinguishable. In the cited case the allegations in the complaint were such which prima facie could not constitute acts which could be committed in the discharge of one's official duty. In that case the allegation in the complaint was that the Post Master General Rajasthan was accused of abusing and kicking the complainant. A plea of sanction was raised at the very out set and in that context the Supreme Court observed that the mere fact that a defence has been raised seeking shelter under section, n Cr. P. C. will not be enough to prove the requirement of sanction. The head note of the citation has probably misled the course into believing that the question of sanction can be considered only after recording of evidence. That is not the true legal position. Thus though the question of sanction was not decided by the Courts below, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the learned Magistrate could not take cognizance of the offences without sanction under section 197 Cr. P. C. must be upheld. 10. In view of the discussion above the revision petition is allowed, and the order passed by learned Sessions Judge directing further enquiry into the complaint is set aside. Revision Allowed. .