Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is a petition filed under Section 482, Cr. PC, challenging the order passed by Sessions Judge, Badwani in Cr. R. No. 37/05 on dated 1-9-2005, whereby and wherein the order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajpur in Cr. Case No. 358/2004 on dated 21-6-2005 framing charge against the present petitioner under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, has been confirmed. ( 2. ) SHORT facts of the case, which are necessary for the disposal of the present petition are that police Rajpur seized 6,000 liters of liquor from Truck No. MP 09-K-5637 on 2-2-2004 and registered an offence punishable under Sections 34 (A) and 49 (2) of the M. P. Excise Act against other co-accused persons. The matter was investigated by the police, during investigation it was found that the documents which were found in that vehicle were forged one particularly the permit issued by Road Transport Officer (RTO), Indore. The original registered owner of the truck was one Mohar Singh and that registered owner submitted an application for transferring that vehicle in the name of Bhupendra Singh alongwith certain documents in the office of RTO, Indore. As per case of the prosecution though Bhupendra Singh was not the registered owner of the vehicle even then present applicant issued a temporary permit in his name, after entering into a criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons to transport illicit liquor in that vehicle. ( 3. ) IT has been stated in the petition filed by the petitioner that petitioner is a public servant, who works in the office of RTO, Indore as Asstt. Grade II. In that capacity when application for issuance of temporary permit was received then the same was processed by the present petitioner and proposals were submitted before RTO. It has also been stated that earlier application for transferring the name of registered owner of the vehicle was also moved by Bhupendra Singh with the consent of original registered owner Mohar Singh. Some documents were filed and vehicle was also physically verified by concerning Transport Sub Inspector, who gave certificate, but as the fitness certificate was not available, so at that time vehicle could not be transferred in the name of Bhupendra Singh. Some documents were filed and vehicle was also physically verified by concerning Transport Sub Inspector, who gave certificate, but as the fitness certificate was not available, so at that time vehicle could not be transferred in the name of Bhupendra Singh. Later on when Bhupendra Singh applied for temporary permit then at that time he also submitted fitness certificate, and, therefore, as all formalities were completed thereafter, proposals for issuance of temporary permit were moved by the present applicant. He has committed no mistake and simply worked as per the rules and procedure of the office of RTO. It has also been stated in the petition that if at all any offence has been committed by present applicant then same has been committed at Indore and not at Rajpur. It has further been stated that petitioner is a public servant and no sanction has been obtained from any Competent Authority under the provisions of Section 197 of the Cr. PC for his prosecution, and, therefore, the prosecution is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. ( 4. ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner Sr. Advocate Shri Chammpalal Yadav submitted that except the seizure memo of permit no other evidence has been collected by the prosecution during investigation against the present petitioner. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that an enquiry was made by the RTO, Indore in this regard and a report bearing No. 1588/2004, dated 16-8-2004 was submitted to Inspector General of Police, Indore Range. In that report, it has been clearly mentioned that the present petitioner has committed no offence and he has simply worked as per rules, regulations and procedure of the office of RTO. The temporary permit, which was issued in the name of Bhupendra Singh, was perfectly according to law. He has further submitted that, that letter was considered by the Police Inspector General, but no order could be passed on that letter because in the meantime charge-sheet was filed in the concerning Court. ( 5. ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has committed no offence and no evidence is available on record against him, in the whole of the charge-sheet submitted by police Rajpur in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, therefore, the proceedings against present petitioner are liable to be quashed only on this ground. ( 6. ) LEARNED Dy. ( 6. ) LEARNED Dy. Public Prosecutor Shri C. R. Karnik initially oppose the prayer of petitioner, but ultimately he conceded that the report of RTO, Indore is in favour of the present petitioner and the RTO opined that the present petitioner has committed no offence. He has also conceded that the letter sent by the RTO in favour of present petitioner was also considered by IGP, Indore, but he could not pass any order on this letter as in the meantime charge-sheet was filed by police Rajpur in the concerning Court. In this respect he has shown a letter on IGP, Indore dated 20-11-2004 bearing number IGP/e/ 2686-C/2004/1867 A/04, wherein Inspector General of Police stated in very clear terms that he was inclined to accept the proposal of RTO, Indore, but could not do so as the charge-sheet was submitted in the meantime by police Rajpur. ( 7. ) THE letter written by RTO, Indore to IGP, Indore and the letter of IGP, which has been referred above clearly shows that present petitioner acted in his official capacity and as per rules, regulations and procedure prescribed for granted temporary permit or for transferring the name of registered owner in the books of the office of RTO. Police has collected no material to indicate that the present petitioner has in any way acted illegally or was having any conspiracy with other co-accused persons of the case. The charges punishable under Sections 120-B, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, are very serious charges and for want of any material such charges should not have been levelled by the concerning police against the present petitioner and that too when the present petitioner was neither found in the vehicle nor any evidence could be collected to show any conspiracy of the present petitioner with other co-accused persons. ( 8. ) ARGUMENTS of learned Counsel for the petitioner regarding sanction of Competent Authority are not acceptable at present, because present petitioner is not a person, who can only be removed from service by the orders of the State Government. ( 9. ) AFTER minutely examining the entire record of the Trial Court and the case diary, which is available with learned Dy. ( 9. ) AFTER minutely examining the entire record of the Trial Court and the case diary, which is available with learned Dy. Public Prosecutor this Court is of the considered view that police has collected no material or evidence against the present applicant, and, therefore, continuation of prosecution against the petitioner will be only abuse of process of law. ( 10. ) THEREFORE, the petition succeeds and is allowed and the prosecution as well as the charges framed by learned Trial Court against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.