Judgment 1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 16.1.2004 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhabua in Complaint Case No. 412 of 1997 by which he has ordered to issue summons against the petitioner and other to stand trial under Sections 120-B, 467. 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard. 3. The case of the complainant is that he is an illiterate and knows only to sign in Hindi. He had opened an account in Bhabua Branch of Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank. On 18.6.1996 he had gone to the Bank to withdraw the amount of Rs. 1,700/-. He submitted the form but the petitioner along with other co-accused by deceiving him got another (wrong) form signed on the pretext that his signature on the form submitted by him did not tally with his specimen signature. On demand the original form submitted by him was also not returned and he was told that the same has been torn. The complainant received the amount of Rs. 1,700/-. On 30.1.1997 the U.T.I. Patna informed the petitioner (Manager of the Branch) that one Savitri Devi had not been paid her money and the matter was enquired into. A police case was filed by the petitioner in which the complainant was also made an accused. He surrendered in the Court and was remanded to custody. Ultimately, he (complainant) was released on bail on 5.8.1997. Thereafter from the police diary etc. he learnt that one Savitri Singh is a Lecturer in psychology in Ganga Devi College at Patna. Two Account Payee cheques of Rs. 17842/-and Rs. 12264/- were sent in her name from the Head Office, Bombay through registered letter to Lohia Nagar Post Office but with the connivance of the Post Office, the cheques were made to disappear. Further case of the complainant is that the accused persons in collusion with each other wanted to encash the above cheques. Accordingly, when the complainant went on 18.1.1996 to the Bank, deceitfully they got the other form signed by him which was used for the purpose of introducing Savitri Singh for opening an account. On the same date Account No. 7530 was also opened in the name of the fake Savitri Singh. The amount of the cheques were credited on receipt in that account and was ultimately withdrawn. 4. On the same date Account No. 7530 was also opened in the name of the fake Savitri Singh. The amount of the cheques were credited on receipt in that account and was ultimately withdrawn. 4. The complainant, hence, filed a complainant petition against the petitioner and other co-accused for obtaining his signature deceitfully on a form and using the same for the purpose of introducing one fake Savitri Singh for illegally withdrawing the amount of the Account Payee Cheques in the name of original Savitri Singh. The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation. He also examined three witnesses under Section 202, Cr PC. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate considering their statements found a prima facie case under Sections 120-B, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and passed the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the withdraw all of the amount of the two Account Payee cheques by opening account in the name of fake Savitri Singh, a case vide Bhabhua P.S. Case No. 49/97 was lodged in which the complainant was arrested. He further submitted that the above police case and the complaint petition related to the same occurrence and, therefore, in view of Section 410, Cr PC the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate should not have proceeded with the complaint case till the submission of the final form in the police case. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. 6. He further submitted that the allegations made in the complaint petition are false and mala fide and has been concocted to wreck personal vengeance and to make out a defence for the police case. He also submitted that the petitioner is the Branch Manager of Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank, a Government of India undertaking and whatever acts have been alleged, they have been done in discharge of his official duty. Therefore, there must have been sanction for prosecution against the petitioner before taking cognizance and as no sanction for prosecution has been obtained, the impugned order is illegal on this score also. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 defended the impugned order. 8. As regards the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would appear from the FIR (Ext. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 defended the impugned order. 8. As regards the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would appear from the FIR (Ext. 2) that the same was filed by the petitioner against opposite party No. 2 and one Savitri Singh wife of Gorakh Singh, Patel Nagar, Bhabua for withdrawing the amount of the above two cheques deceitfully by impersonating the real Savitri Singh whereas the complaint petition shows that opposite party No. 2 has filed a complaint case against the petitioner and others for deceitfully obtaining the signature of opposite party No. 2 and committing forgery. Therefore, the police case and the complaint case, in fact, did not relate to the same offence but to attract the provisions of Section 210, Cr PC the complaint case as well as the police investigation must relate to the same offence. Therefore, if the learned Magistrate did not stay the proceedings of the complaint case, no illegality has been committed. 9. As regards the second contention, the impugned order shows that opposite party No. 2 has supported the allegation made by him in the complaint petition and the same has also been supported by the witnesses examined under Section 202, Cr PC. At this stage the Magistrate is required only to see whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused on the basis of the materials on record. He cannot, at this stage, meticulously appreciate the evidence. Therefore, when the learned Magistrate has found a prima facie case against the petitioner, at this stage, it cannot be said that the allegations are false and malqfide and have been concocted with a view to create a defence. This matter can be considered during trial. 10. As regards the last submission of the learned counsel, sanction as provided under Section 197(1), Cr PC is required only for such Public Servant who is not removable from its office save and except by or with the sanction of the Government but there is nothing to show that the petitioner is such a public servant. Therefore, there is no such question for sanction for prosecuting the petitioner. Therefore, there is no such question for sanction for prosecuting the petitioner. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been compromise between the parties but the offences are not compoundable and as such on this ground also the impugned order cannot be set aside. 11. In the result, I do not find any merit in this application. This application is accordingly dismissed.