Judgment 1. ORDER :- This revision petition is directed against the order dated 5-2-96, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa in Cr. Case No. 215 of 1995, by which the Court below has rejected the prayer for withdrawal of the case as the Municipality is not aggrieved by the offence. 2 Brief facts of the case are that the opposite party No. 3 Dashrath Prasad alias Dashrath Prasad Sah made an application to the Chairman of the Municipality stating therein that he has some portion of land in Plot No. 922 and further stated that the construction is being made without following the norms of the building by laws or norms of the Municipality and the said new plot No. 922 is pertaining to earlier plot No. 1042 and Khata No. 456. On the basis of the said petition made by the opposite party No. 3 and endorsement was made by the Chairman of the Municipality to its Chief Executive Officer that the aforesaid construction was made by the petitioner without sanction and causing inconvenience to the opposite party No. 2 and notice was issued to the petitioner. It was stated that a complaint has been received against the petitioner for construction of house against the rules and by-laws of the municipality without previous sanction. After notice, the petitioner was directed to stop the construction and to submit his show cause within a week. It has been stated that the petitioner received the aforesaid notice and filed show cause. On 24-10-1994 a prosecution report was filed by the Saharsa Municipality for the offence under Sec. 192 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in this case due sanction was required under the law, but the same has not been taken. It has further been submitted that the prosecution report was submitted by the Municipality and, therefore, the Municipality was fully competent to withdraw the case. 4. Perused the order impugned in this case. Since the prosecution report filed by the Municipality was on the complaint of the opposite party No. 3 as such the opposite party No. 3 was the informant of the case. The Court below has held that though the concerned department has filed a petition for withdrawal of the case, but the informant had objected to it. Since the prosecution report filed by the Municipality was on the complaint of the opposite party No. 3 as such the opposite party No. 3 was the informant of the case. The Court below has held that though the concerned department has filed a petition for withdrawal of the case, but the informant had objected to it. It has been further observed by the Court below that since by the action of the petitioner the informant was aggrieved and not the Municipality as such the Court below came to conclusion that the municipality has no right for withdrawal of the case. A counter-affidavit as well as a supplementary affidavit has been filed by the opposite party No. 3. 5. I have seen the letter of withdrawal of the case filed by the Municipality. From the letter, it appears that no reason has been assigned as to why the municipality wants to withdraw the case. From the above facts, I find that the Court below has taken right stand by not allowing to withdraw the case. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. At this stage, accordingly revision petition is dismissed. Revision dismissed.