JUDGMENT 1. - These three petitions u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arise out of the order of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh dated 7.9.2002 confirming the order datd 13.11.2001 of the Judicial Magistrate, Kapasan taking cognizance against the petitioners for offence u/s. 193, 409, 420, 467, 471, 120B and 34 IPC. Petitioner Madan Lal is a former Vikas Adhikari of the Panchayat Samiti, Bhopalsagar. Petitioner Banshi Das is the Clerk of the same Panchayat Samiti. In the third petition, petitioner Dinesh Nath is the former Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti, Bhopalsagar. 2. Briefly stated that facts of the case are that on Kanhaiya Lal submitted a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kapasan stating inter alia that the Panchayat Samiti, Bhopalsagar (hereinafter referred to as the Samiti) organised a tournament in the name of `Swarn Jayanti Tournament' during the period 18th to 19th September, 1997. Banshi Das the clerk of the Samiti took an advance of Rs, 5,000/- on 17.9.1997 and Rs. 10,000/- on 18.9.1997 in total Rs. 15,000/- for arranging refreshment/food for the players. The financial sanction was granted by the Vikas Adhikari. The arrangement for tea/refreshment the second day was arranged by the Mewar Sugar Mills, Bhopalsagar. The amount withdrawn was not spent for food/refreshment on the players. After ten months the vouchers worth Rs. 15,000/- showing the expenditure on refreshment/food on 18.9.1997 during the tournament were submitted. The Vikas Adhikari approved the adjustment of the amount of Rs. 15,000/- The vouchers were fabricated by Banshi Das with a view to falsely adjust the amount withdrawn by him. The learned Magistrate sent the complaint for investigation u/s. 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During the investigation police verified the entire record and arrived at the conclusion that there was no case against the petitioners. Accordingly the police forwarded a negative police report. The report was objected to by the complainant Kanhaiya Lal by way of submitting a protest petition. The learned Magistrate rejected the final report forwarded by the police and took cognizance against the petitioners for offences u/s. 193, 420, 467, 471, 120B and 34 IPC. The petitioners challenged the said order of the learned Magistrate by way of separate revision applications. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order dated 7.9.2002 rejected all the three revisions petitions. 3. The petitioners challenged the said order of the learned Magistrate by way of separate revision applications. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order dated 7.9.2002 rejected all the three revisions petitions. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. During the investigation the police recorded statements of number of witnesses. It is stated by the witnesses that refreshment and food was served by the Samiti on 18.9.1997. The parties had no grievance with respect to serving of the food/refreshment. Of course there was delay in submitting the vouchers. The Vikas Adhikari had sanctioned the amount as per the resolution of the Samiti. Thus, on the basis of material on record it cannot be said even prima facie that the allegations constitute an offence of cheating or forgery. 4. In a case where public servant is sought to be prosecuted with respect to the work done by them in their discharge of official duties it is expected of the learned Magistrate to be extremely careful more particularly when the police after thorough investigation has given a final report in taking cognizance of certain offences putting them to trial. It is in the larger public interest to protect a public servant from the vexatious prosecution. A person engaged in the affairs of the Panchayat Samiti is a person employed in connection with the affairs of the State. The continuing proceedings against the petitioners who are public servants is bound to cause a serious miscarriage of justice. If the complainant has any information as to the corruption in the Samiti he can approach to the higher authorities in the Department. There is a mechanism like audit or the departmental enquiries. After departmental enquiry a decision can be taken by the appropriate authority in a fit case for taking appropriate decision for the prosecution of a public servant. The straight away complaint by a private party against a public servant making allegations of corruption should not be encouraged. It will be highly risky for the Court to entertain the raw allegations without being filtered through the proper police investigation or the departmental enquiry. In the instant case the police has investigated the case on the basis of material available on record. They found the complaint false and fabricated. The learned Magistrate simply on the statement of the complainant has sent the public servants for trial. In the instant case the police has investigated the case on the basis of material available on record. They found the complaint false and fabricated. The learned Magistrate simply on the statement of the complainant has sent the public servants for trial. The order of the learned Magistrate confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge being illegal deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Consequently, all the three Misc. Petitions are allowed. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh dated 7.9.2002 as well as the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Kapasan dated 13.11.2001 is quashed and set aside. The F.R. No. 6/2001 submitted by the S.H.O., Police Station, Akola stands accepted. The record of the case be returned forthwith.Petition allowed. *******