Judgment :- L.S. SREENIVASA REDDY, J. (1) IN this Criminal Petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire proceedings pending before the Additional. M.F.C., Athani, in C. C. No. 1132 of 1987. (2) THE petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 and 3 respectively before the. M. F. C. , Athani, in C. C No. 1132 of 1987. Petitioner No. 1 was the former sheristedar in the Office of the Tahsildar, Athani, and petitioner No. 2 was the second Division Clerk in the said office. (3) THE facts of the case are that lands bearing Nos. 124/1,124/3, 111 and 112 of Jambagi village in Athani taluk originally stood in the name of Vithoba parasaram Gadadare of Jambagi village who was in actual possession of the said lands. (4) ACCUSED No. 1 was working as Sherisiedar in the office of the Tahsildar, Alhani, from 11-10-1980 to 28-6-1985 and accused No. 3 was working as Second division Clerk in the same office from 5-5-1981 to 28-5-1986. Accused No. 2 was working as a Copyist in the same office from 23-5-1979 to 29-5-1987. However, in this petition we are not concerned with accused No. 2 since he is not one of the petitioners. (5) ACCUSED Nos. 4 and 5 had filed Form No. VII before the Land Tribunal, Athani, for grant of occupancy rights in respect of Sy. Nos. 124/1,124/3, 111 and 112 of Jambagi village. During the pendency of Form No. VII before the Land tribunal, Athani, accused Nos. 4 and 5 preferred an appeal No. KLR. AP. 85-86 before the Assistant Commissioner, Chikodi, under Section 83 of the karnataka Land Reforms Act and obtained an order of stay for the operation of the under-mentioned mutation entries: 1. ME. No. 2700 Lands R. S. Nos. 111/1, and 112/2,111/2,112/1 have been purchased by Upendra Dattu Miraje (2) Chandrakant Dondiba Miraje. 2. M. E. No. 2701 R. S. No. 124/1,124/3 Gifted by owner to one Sri Anand Gaynu Darekar. 3. M. E. No. 2702 R. S. No. 111/a-1, 112/2-B, 111/1-B, purchased by Anand Gaynu Darekar. 4. M. E. No. 2703 R. S. No. 111/1-B, purchased by Annappa Parasappa Naik. The said accused persons produced xerox copies of the extract of Record of rights in respect of the suit lands along with a xerox copy of mutation entry No. M. E. 1539 of Jambagi village. 4. M. E. No. 2703 R. S. No. 111/1-B, purchased by Annappa Parasappa Naik. The said accused persons produced xerox copies of the extract of Record of rights in respect of the suit lands along with a xerox copy of mutation entry No. M. E. 1539 of Jambagi village. It was on the basis of this mutation entry accused nos. 4 and 5 were able to obtain the aforesaid order. In the meanwhile, the aforesaid original owner Vithoba Parasuram Gadadare submitted petitions to the additional District and Special Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum, alleging that accused Nos. 4 and 5 in collusion with accused Nos. 1 to 3 had got Record of rights and mutation entry No. M. E. 1539 of the lands in dispute and forged and fabricated the same by inserting the names of accused Nos. 4 and 5 in the cultivators column of the RTC extract for the year 1965-66 by overwriting the word "jcdsj," and writing as "ridtf for the subsequent years 1967 to 1974 onwards. It was also alleged that there is no change in the cultivators column for the years 1965 to 1974 in the original Record of Rights maintained in the office of the Tahsildar. (6) ON receipt of the petition of Gadadare, the Special Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum, after verifying all the relevant documents held that the entries made in the Record of Rights of the lands in dispute were fabricated and they were intended for using in judicial proceeding. Accordingly, by his order dated 31-3-1987, he authorised the complainant-The Assistant Commissioner, chikodi who was administratively subordinate to him to file a complaint before a competent court. Specific sanction to file a criminal complaint was accorded by the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum, by his order dated 6-10-1987. Pursuant to the sanction order to file the aforesaid criminal complaint the Assistant Commissioner, Chikodi, filed a criminal complaint under Section 200, Cr. P. C. , against all the accused persons under Sections 193, 209,464 and 465, IPC. (7) SRI R. B. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that in view of Section 340, Cr.P.C., the Deputy Commissioner ought to have sent the petition of Gadadare to the Assistant Commissioner, Chikodi, before whom the appeal preferred by accused Nos. 4 and 5 was pending or he himself should have filed a complaint in writing to the jurisdictional Magistrate. 4 and 5 was pending or he himself should have filed a complaint in writing to the jurisdictional Magistrate. He further contended that the learned Deputy Commissioner should have given a finding that there is a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood and it was necessary and expedient in the interest of justice to file a complaint against the accused. (8) I have perused the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner dated 31-3-1987. He has not given a clear and positive finding that the lodging of the complaint against the accused persons was expedient in the interest of justice. Further, there is no provision under the Criminal Procedure Code to authorise a third person to lodge a complaint against such accused. In support of his contention Sri Deshpande also relied on a decision of the Delhi High Court in k. K. Khanna and Another v Mis. Expo Enterprises, India, New Delhi and Others, 1984 Cr.. 1723, wherein it has been held that the order for lodging of a criminal complaint could be said to have been vitiated when it was nowhere opined or recorded in the order as a fact that the lodging of the complaint against the accused was expedient in the interest of justice as required under section 340, Cr. P. C. This requirement of law was of fundamental importance and the omission in that regard vitiated the order. (9) IN the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back with a direction to the Assistant commissioner, Chikodi, if Appeal No. 4 of 1985-86 is still pending before him to inquire into the matter and decide whether a criminal complaint has to be filed against the accused persons in the interest of justice. If the said appeal is not pending before him and if it is pending before any other Authority the said authority shall consider whether the complaint had to be filed against the accused persons in the interest of justice and take necessary steps to lodge a fresh complaint against the accused persons if it is found that the lodging of the complaint would be expedient in the interest of justice.