Judgment S. T. KHARCHE, J. ( 1 ) THIS application takes an exception to the order dated 6-1-2001 passed by the learned J. M. F. C. in Regular Criminal Case No. 3 of 1994 whereby the learned Magistrate allowed the application filed by the original respondent No. 2 for permitting him to continue the criminal prosecution against the petitioner alongwith other three co-accused. ( 2 ) BRIEF case of prosecution is as under:a) The petitioner has retired from service as Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The original complainant Dhansukh was the President of chandralok Co-operative Housing Society. An Administrator was appointed in the said Society and the President in his official capacity had directed enquiry into the affairs of the Society under Section 83 of the maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter called as the Act) and a criminal case was filed against Dhansukh on the basis of the defaults found in the said enquiry. (b) Dhansukh had instituted private criminal case which was numbered as criminal Case No. 3/89 against the petitioner and 11 members as well as the Administrator and Auditor of the Society for the offences punishable under various sections of Indian Penal Code. (c) The petitioner filed Criminal Appln. No. 68 of 1989 in this Court seekingthe relief of quashing and setting aside the proceedings in Criminal case No. 3 of 1989. This Court allowed the said application and quashed the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 3/89. The original complainant dhansukh thereafter filed another private criminal complaint which was numbered as Criminal Case No. 200 of 1989 against the petitioner under section 193 of Indian Penal Code which was dismissed for default by the learned J. M. F. C. On 6-1-1994. Thereafter the said Dhansukh instituted a private criminal case on 7-1-1994 which was numbered as regular Criminal Case No. 3 of 1994 against the petitioner under section 193 of Indian Penal Code. Dhansukh died on 14-9-1999 during the pendency of the said criminal case and his son moved an application before the learned J. M. F. C. seeking permission to continue the prosecution. The learned J. M. F. C. allowed the said application on 6-1-2001 and this order is challenged in this application. ( 3 ) MR. Dhansukh died on 14-9-1999 during the pendency of the said criminal case and his son moved an application before the learned J. M. F. C. seeking permission to continue the prosecution. The learned J. M. F. C. allowed the said application on 6-1-2001 and this order is challenged in this application. ( 3 ) MR. Mehadia, learned Counsel, for the petitioner contended that the criminal prosecution which was instituted by the complainant Dhansukh against the petitioner in the capacity of Ex-President of Chandralok Co-operative housing Society, has abated on his death and his son has no legal right to prosecute the case. He contended that the petitioner was a public servant and it was necessary to obtain permission for his prosecution from the competent authority. In fact the permission to prosecute the petitioner was sought but the competent authority refused to grant permission and on this ground also the criminal prosecution against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. He further contended that since all the criminal prosecutions initiated by deceased Dhansuk were on the basis of the letter dated 3-12-1986 and since the earlier proceedings have been quashed by this Court, the learned J. M. F. C. Has committed an error on granting permission to the son of deceased Dhansukh to continue the said criminal prosecution and, therefore, the impugned order has resulted into miscarriage of justice and deserves to be set aside. ( 4 ) NONE appeared for respondent No. 2 though duly served. ( 5 ) THIS Court has given thoughtful consideration to the contentions canvassed by Mr. Mehadia, learned Counsel, for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the complainant Dhansukh had filed criminal prosecution in the nature of private complaint against the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was a Government servant and he has retired from his service. Formerly he was working as Assistant Registrar of Co-operative societies. Therefore, it would be obvious that for the prosecution of the petitioner, sanction to prosecute was essential. The complainant had sought the said sanction to prosecute the petitioner from the competent authority but it appears that the competent authority had refused to grant sanction to prosecute. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, it is relevant to note that the petitioner had challenged his criminal prosecution in this Court by filling Criminal Application No. 68 of 1989. The complainant had sought the said sanction to prosecute the petitioner from the competent authority but it appears that the competent authority had refused to grant sanction to prosecute. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, it is relevant to note that the petitioner had challenged his criminal prosecution in this Court by filling Criminal Application No. 68 of 1989. This Court while disposing of the said criminal application on 3-10-1989 observed in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 as under:"in view of the above discussion, it will be seen that the complaint has been filed by the non-applicant No. 2 with a specific intention to pressurise the applicants and non-applicant Nos. 3 and 4, who brought to the notice of the authorities the misappropriation committed by the complainant in the said society as well as all the illegal activities committed by him which were taken cognizance of by the authorities. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the activities of the non-applicant No. 2 are such that he filled the complaint with a specific intention to harass applicants and also to take revenge against them for their participation in filling the compliant before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative societies and also to take revenge against the Assistant Registrar and auditor of the Co-operative Department. In view of the above discussion in my Judgment, the order passed by the learned Chief Judical Magistrate ordering issuance of process vide his order dated 7-1-1989 in Criminal Case No. 3 of 1989 against the accused Nos. 1 to 14 is liable to be quashed and set aside and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. It is pertinent to note that even prosecution of the non applicant No. 3, Assistant Registrar of Co-operative societies, as no permission of the Department has been sought and as such on this ground alone, prosecution against the non-applicant No. 3 is liable to be quashed. In the result, the Criminal Application No. 68 of 1989 stands allowed. The proceedings which are pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, buldana, in Criminal Case No. 3 of 1989 are hereby quashed and set aside. " ( 7 ) IT appears that the aforesaid observations of this Court were not brought to the notice of the learned J. M. F. C. who decided the application filed by the son of Dhansukh for permitting him to continue the prosecution against the petitioner. " ( 7 ) IT appears that the aforesaid observations of this Court were not brought to the notice of the learned J. M. F. C. who decided the application filed by the son of Dhansukh for permitting him to continue the prosecution against the petitioner. Be that as it may, it is obvious that once the criminal prosecution has been quashed, the second criminal complaint on the basis of the same allegations would not lie and it appears from the earlier observations made by this Court while disposing of Criminal Application No. 68 of 1989 that only in order to take revenge and to defend himself in the criminal prosecution, he had falsely implicated the petitioner and other accused inlcuding the auditor. In such a situation, it is quite clear that the impugned order passed by the learned J. M. F. C. is not sustainable in law and deserves to be set aside. Consequently, the application is allowed and the prosecution in Criminal Case no. 3 of 1994 is hereby quashed and set aside. Application allowed.