JUDGMENT 1. - By way of instant petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C., petitioners have challenged the order dated 31.10.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jodhpur whereby he has rejected their application filed u/s: 245(2) Cr.P.C. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Additional District Collector (Returning Officer), Jodhpur filed a complaint against petitioners before the Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur for the offence u/ss. 177, 191, 192, 199, 200, 468, 471, 474, 420 & 120-B IPC on the ground of enquiry made by the SDM, City, Jodhpur. Petitioner No. 1 was a candidate for Municipal Corporation Election held in the year 1999. Section 26(xv) of the Rajasthan Nagar Palika Act, 1959 disqualifies a person having more than two children given birth after cut off date i.e. 28.11.1995. It is alleged that on 16.11.1999, petitioner No. 1 at the time of filing nomination gave wrong information regarding his children. The learned Magistrate took cognizance against petitioners for the offence u/ss. 177, 199 & 420 r/w 120-B IPC. The same controversy came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 601/2002, Rakesh Ghatiwal v. State, decided on 19.2.2003 . The Division Bench on appreciation of material on record held that the material relied upon by the Enquiry Officer to the effect that a child was born to Pushpa wife of Rakesh, resident of Milkman Colony, in no way connects the same with Pushpa wife of Rakesh Ghatiwal of Milkman Colony. The relevant finding is extracted as follows : "We can thus conclude without hesitation that the only reason that has prevailed with Enquiry Officer and the material which has been considered by the Enquiry Officer in coming to conclusion that a female child was born to Pushpa wife of appellant, suffer from error apparent on the face of record, inasmuch the material considered and relied on by the Enquiry Officer to hold that a child was born to Pushpa W/o Rakesh, resident of Milkman Colony, Jodhpur on 22.10.1999 in no way connect the same with Pushpa W/o Rakesh Ghatiwal. It is not a case of insufficiency or inadequacy of material which has been considered by Enquiry Officer; but is a case that such material nowhere connect the appellant with the event proved. In other words, finding is alleged to be based on no evidence." 3. It is not a case of insufficiency or inadequacy of material which has been considered by Enquiry Officer; but is a case that such material nowhere connect the appellant with the event proved. In other words, finding is alleged to be based on no evidence." 3. The Division Bench judgment in Rakesh Ghatiwal's case (supra) was brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate, who refused to discharge the petitioner u/s. 245(2) Cr.P.C. as in his opinion, the finding recorded in the civil proceedings cannot be relied upon in the criminal proceedings. 4. On careful consideration of the controversy involved, in my opinion, the learned Magistrate has committed serious illegality in continuing the proceedings irrespective of the fact that the controversy has been concluded by the Division Bench judgment of this Court. I have carefully gone through the entire judgment of the Division Bench. On appreciation of the entire material on record, it is found that the allegation made by the Returning Officer, which is the basis of the instant complaint, has been negatived. In view of this, no useful purpose is going to be served by continuing the instant criminal proceedings filed at the instance of the Returning Officer. 5. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings against petitioners in Criminal Case No. 333/2001, ADM v. Rakesh Ghatiwal pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jodhpur stand quashed.Petition allowed. *******