ORDER N.K. Mody, J. 1. This order shall also govern the disposal of M.Cr.C. Nos. 4628/2005 and 235/2006 as in all the petitions the prayer is for quashment of Case No. 5004/2005 pending in the Court of JMFC, Indore whereby the cognizance of the offence has been taken against the petitioner vide order dated 21-9-2005 for an offence alleged to have been committed under Sections 465, 469,471,499, 500 and 120-B of IPC. Dr. Rajesh Kasliwal, who is petitioner in M.Cr.C. No. 111/2006 is Doctor by profession and running a Nursing Home in the name and style of M/s Apollo Nursing Home. Subhash Sojatia who is petitioner in M.Cr.C. No. 4628/2005 is a political worker and was Health Minister of the State of M.P. at the relevant time. Ashok Kumar Gupta who is petitioner in M.Cr.C. No. 235/2006 is in the services of State of M.P. and was posted as Private Secretary to the then Health Minister/Subhash Sojatia at the relevant time. 2. Short facts of the case are that a private complaint was lodged by the respondent/Arun Kumar Jain on 23-7-2004 for an offence alleged to have been committed under Sections 120-B, 166,167,182,188,191,192,193,195,196,197, 198, 199, 200, 204, 205, 211, 420, 463, 464, 467, 468, 471, 499 and 500 of IPC against all the petitioners and also against Shri Digvijay Singh, the then Chief Minister, Nanhesingh, the then Secretary, Home Department, R.C. Arora, I.G. Narcotics, Smt. Jaishri Kiyawat, the then Deputy Secretary, Health and Raju Vishwasrai Patil, Receptionist of M/s Apollo Nursing Home. After recording of statement under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.PC learned Trial Court took the cognizance of offence against the petitioners vide order dated 21-9-2005 for an offence alleged to have been committed under Sections 465, 469,471, 499,500 and 120-B of IPC. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petitions have been filed. 3. Since case was not registered by the learned Trial Court against Digvijay Singh, the then Chief Minister, Nanhesingh, the then Secretary, Home Department, R.C. Arora, I.G. Narcotics, Smt. Jaishri Kiyawat, the then Deputy Secretary, Health and Raju Vishwasrai Patil, Receptionist of Apollo Nursing Home, therefore, the respondent who is complainant approached this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 1286/2006 and vide order dated 16-3-2007 this Court dismissed the petition filed by the respondent. 4. Mr. S.K. Vyas, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Dr. 4. Mr. S.K. Vyas, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Dr. Rajesh Kasliwal argued at length and submits that learned Trial Court committed error in taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner has not committed any offence. It is submitted that there is nothing on record on the basis of which it can be said that the petitioner was involved in any conspiracy. It is submitted that the alleged letter dated 13-7-2001 has no concern with the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has been prosecuted on the basis of alleged letter which is alleged to have been forged and the said letter has not signed by the petitioner. It is submitted that in the said letter itself it is mentioned that the said letter has been signed for Dr. Suresh Agrawal, which makes it clear that it is not signed by Dr. Suresh Agrawal. 5. Mr. Z.A. Khan, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.R. Trivedi and Mr. P.K. Shukla appearing on behalf of Subhash Sojatia and Ashok Kumar Gupta submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated and has not committed any offence on the basis of evidence adduced by the respondent which is in shape of statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.PC, which does not disclose any offence committed by the petitioners. It is submitted that the alleged letter dated 13-7-2001 has been written by petitioner Subhash Sojatia in the capacity of a Public Servant as he was the then Health Minister at the relevant time. It is submitted that even otherwise also since the petitioners were Public Servant and were discharging their duties as Health Minister and Private Secretary to Health Minister, therefore, without obtaining sanction under Section 197 of Cr.PC the petitioner cannot be prosecuted. It is submitted that even the entire evidence adduced by the respondent is taken into consideration, then too, the petitioner cannot be convicted. It is submitted that all the petitions filed by the petitioners be allowed and the impugned order passed by learned Trial Court whereby cognizance has been taken be quashed. 6. Dr. Manohar Dalai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/complainant submits that since the sufficient evidence is on record in shape of documentary as well as oral evidence, therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly taken the cognizance of offence which requires no interference. 6. Dr. Manohar Dalai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/complainant submits that since the sufficient evidence is on record in shape of documentary as well as oral evidence, therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly taken the cognizance of offence which requires no interference. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that sufficient evidence is on record to show that the petitioner in all the petitions have committed the offence and the learned Trial Court has rightly taken the cognizance against the petitioner. Reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of K. Ashok v. N.L. Chandrashekar (2009) 5 SCC 199 , wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that this Court cannot quash complaint if allegations prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offence. It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. 7. From perusal of record, it appears that the complaint was filed by the respondent/Arun Kumar Jain, Deputy Superintendent of Police under Section 120,B, 166,167,182,188,191,192,195,196,197,198,199,200,204,205, 211,420,467,468,499 and 500 of IPC on 23-7-2004, wherein eight persons were impleaded as accused which includes the present petitioners. In the complaint it was alleged that petitioner/Subhash Sojatia, the then Health Minister made a false complaint on 13-7-2001 to Shri Digvijay Singh, the then Chief Minister of M.P. with a request to suspend the respondent and get the matter inquired. In the complaint it was alleged that upon the complaint lodged by the petitioner/ Subhash Sojatia, the then Health Minister, Shri Digvijay Singh, the then Chief Minister of M.P. vide order dated 14-7-2001 issued orders for suspension of respondent and to justify the suspension of respondent directed the Director General of Police to get the matter investigated on or before 16-7-2001. It was further alleged in the complaint that to ensure the compliance of the order issued by the then Chief Minister on 14-7-2001 the order passed by the then Chief Minister was sent to Nanhesingh, the then Principal Secretary (Home). It was alleged that the complaint which was lodged by the petitioner/Subhash Sojatia along with the complaint of Dr. Rajesh Kasliwal while in fact no complaint of Dr. Rajesh Kasliwal dated 13-7-2001 was in existence. It was alleged that petitioner/Dr. Rajesh Kasliwal in collusion with petitioner/Subhash Sojatia has lodged a false complaint on 18-7-2001 against the respondent. It was alleged in the complaint that in the said false complaint Raju Vishwasrai Patil was impleaded as witness. Rajesh Kasliwal while in fact no complaint of Dr. Rajesh Kasliwal dated 13-7-2001 was in existence. It was alleged that petitioner/Dr. Rajesh Kasliwal in collusion with petitioner/Subhash Sojatia has lodged a false complaint on 18-7-2001 against the respondent. It was alleged in the complaint that in the said false complaint Raju Vishwasrai Patil was impleaded as witness. On the basis of these allegations it was alleged that petitioners be prosecuted. Upon filing of complaint the case was listed for recording of evidence under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.PC and the respondent examined himself as A.W. 1, A.K. Kotwala (A.W. 2), R.K. Kharat (A.W. 3), Hariom Gangwal (A.W. 4), Subodh Shrotriya (A.W. 5), Dr. Suresh Agrawal (A.W. 6) and Vashudev Rawal (A.W. 7). 8. After recording of the evidence adduced by the respondent, learned JMFC took the cognizance of the offence against some of the accused persons who are petitioners herein and dismissed the complaint against rest of the persons who were impleaded by the respondent as an accused. Thereafter, a petition was filed by the respondent before this Court against that part of the order whereby the complaint was dismissed against rest of the proposed accused. In that petition the accused persons against whom the complaint was dismissed were impleaded as party and the petition was numbered as 1286/2006 and was decided on 16-3-2007. While deciding the petition filed by the respondent this Court after taking into consideration the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das 2006 Cri. Law Reporter (SC) 295, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held that cognizance of offence cannot be taken against accused persons unless prior sanction is obtained under Section 197 (1) of Cr.PC from the Competent Authority. 9. Law Reporter (SC) 295, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held that cognizance of offence cannot be taken against accused persons unless prior sanction is obtained under Section 197 (1) of Cr.PC from the Competent Authority. 9. In the present case, the letter dated 13-7-2001 alleged to have been issued by the petitioner/Subhash Sojatia, which reads as under: izfr] ekuuh; eq[;ea=h egksn;] e-iz- 'kklu fo"k;% ihFkeiqj esa inLFk lh-,e-ih- Jh ,-ds- tSu vkardh dk;Zokgh tkudkjh ds laca/k esaA eS vkt fnukad 13&7&2001 dks bUnkSj ds viksyks uflZx gkse esa vius iSj esa rdyhQ ds dkj.k dyj MkWIyj ,oa vU; tkap djokus vk;k Fkk A blh nkSjku Jh ,-ds- tSu] lh-,l-ih- ihFkeiqj] ftyk /kkj tks fd orZeku esa vodk'k ij gS ds yxkrkj Qksu vkrs jgs o ogka ds MkW- jkts'k dklyhoky dks xkyh xykSp ,oa uflZx gkse esa vkx yxkus dh /kkSal ns jgs Fks & esjs ijh{k.k i'pkr~ tc eSus MkW- jkts'k dklyhoky ls iwjh ?kVuk iwNh rks mUgksus eq>s crk;k fd Jh ,-ds- tSu dk vjksi gS fd Jh ,-ds-tSu ds fj'rsnkj dh ,e-vkj-vkbZ- esa tks QkbafMaXl ;gka crkbZ x;h Fkh os ckEcs esa Bhd ugha fudyh ftlds dkj.k os eka] cgu dh xkfy;ka cdus ds lkFk gh iSls okilh dh ekax dj jgs Fks & vLirky dk iwjk LVkQ Jh ,-ds- tSu ds bl O;ogkj ls Hk;Hkhr Fkk bl ij ls eSus vkbZ-th- bUnkSj Jh daoj flag ls ckr djuh pkgh rks os Hkksiky izokl ij Fks] fQj eSus Mh-th- ih- Hkksiky ls ckr djuh pkgh rks os fons'k izokl ij Fks] /kkj ,l-ih- dy dk;ZeqDr gks x;s Fks rc eSus Jh ,-ds- tSu ls ckr dh vkSj mUgs le>kus dh dksf'k'k dh fd os ,slk O;ogkj u djsa mUgs dksbZ f'kdk;r gS rks ;gka vkdj ppkZ djsa A nqHkkZX;o'k Jh ,-ds- tSu eq>ls vuxZy okrkZyki djus yxs mUgksus eq>s bruk rd dgk fd ,sls ea=h eSus cgqr ns[ks gS A ;g ,d vR;ar gh fparktud ?kVuk gS A ,d yksdlsod vkSj ftEesnkj vf/kdkjh bruk taxyh O;ogkj dj jgk gS ;g ,d xaHkhjre ?kVuk gSA esjk vkils vuqjks/k gS fd ,sls iqfyl vf/kdkjh dks rRdky fuyafcr fd;k tkdj bl iwjs izdj.k dh tkap vkt gh djokus dh d`Ikk djsaA Hkonh; lqHkk"k dqekj lkstkfr;k layXu % MkW jkts'k dklyhoky dk f'kdk;rh i=A 10. In this letter, there is an endorsement that the complaint filed by Dr. Rajesh Kasliwal who is petitioner is one of the petitions is enclosed. In this letter, there is an endorsement that the complaint filed by Dr. Rajesh Kasliwal who is petitioner is one of the petitions is enclosed. Upon complaint made by petitioner/Subhash Sojatia itself, Shri Digvijay Singh, the then Chief Minister has passed as order to the effect that this is a serious crime. He should be suspended. Addl. D.G. (Administration) should be ordered to inquire into this complaint. He should be relieved by 16-7-2001 and attach in I.G. Office at Indore and also ensure compliance by 16-7-2001. There is a complaint by the petitioner/Dr. Rajesh Kasliwal who is running a Nursing in the name and style of M/s Apollo Nursing Home, which is addressed to Police Station, Tukoganj and which has been received at Police Station, Tukoganj on 18-7-2001. There is one more complaint which was sent to Chief Minister on behalf of M.P. Nursing Home Association, Indore Branch which reads as under: To, The Chief Minister, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. Respected Chief Minister Digvijay Singhji, We would like to bring to your kind notice the rude behaviour of CSP Pithampur, Mr. A.K. Jain. MRI Investigation of his father-in-law was done at one of our member's diagnostic centre about 5 days back. Today morning he telephoned the Director of the said diagnostic centre and threatened and abused him and asked him to refund the amount for the MRI which was charged at the centre. He behaved very arrogantly and threatened the Director of dire consequences if the amount was not paid to him. He also told him that he knows very well how to extract money and will see to it that if he is not paid the amount, he will get the said centre closed down. We do not expect this type of behaviour and blackmailing by a Senior Police Officer. We would like to request you that immediate action be taken against the said Police Officer. If he is not suspended with immediate effect then our association will be forced to take unwanted measures and all the Nursing Homes in Indorc will have to stop their working in protest. Thanking you and expecting an early action from you. Yours Sincerely, (Dr. Suresh Agrawal) c.c.: I.G. Police, Indore 11. This complaint appears to have been signed for Dr. Suresh Agrawal. Dr. Thanking you and expecting an early action from you. Yours Sincerely, (Dr. Suresh Agrawal) c.c.: I.G. Police, Indore 11. This complaint appears to have been signed for Dr. Suresh Agrawal. Dr. Suresh Agrawal has been examined by the respondent as A.W. 6 who has stated that he has never issued the letter dated 13-7-2001 to the Chief Minister. He has further stated that the letter dated 13-7-2001 does not bear his signature. 12. From perusal of order dated 8-9-2005 passed by learned Trial Court, it is evident that the cognizance of offence has been taken against the petitioners herein under Sections 465,469,471 and 500 read with Section 120-B of IPC. In the matter of Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna v. Peddi Ravindera Babu (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1297, Hon'ble Apex Court has placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, wherein in a case for quashment under Section 482 of Cr.PC. Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, this Court is having inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.PC to quash the complaint. 13. In the matter of Sankaran Moitra (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the law which reads as under: 15. Coming to the facts of this case, the question is whether the appellant was acting in his official capacity while the alleged offence was committed or was performing a duty in his capacity as a Police Officer which led to the offence complained of. That it was the day of election to the State Assembly, that the appellant was in uniform; that the appellant travelled in an official jeep to the spot, near a polling booth and the offence was committed while he was on the spot, may not by themselves attract Section 197 (1) of the Code. That it was the day of election to the State Assembly, that the appellant was in uniform; that the appellant travelled in an official jeep to the spot, near a polling booth and the offence was committed while he was on the spot, may not by themselves attract Section 197 (1) of the Code. But as can be seen from the facts disclosed in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State based on the entries in the General Diary of the Phoolbagan Police Station at 1400 hours of some disturbance at a polling booth, that it took a violent turn and clashes between the supporters of two political parties was imminent. It was then that the appellant reached the side of the incident in his official vehicle. It is seen that a case had been registered on the basis of the incidents that took place and a report in this behalf had also been sent to the superiors by the Station House Officer. It is also seen and it is supported by the witnesses examined by the Chief Judicial Magistrate while taking cognizance of the offence that the appellant on reaching the spot had a discussion with the officer-in-charge who was stationed at the spot and thereafter a lathi charge took place or there was an attack on the husband of the complainant and he met with his death. Obviously, it was part of the duty of the appellant to prevent any breach of law and maintain order on the polling day or to prevent the blocking of voters or present what has come to be known as booth capturing. It, therefore, emerges that the act was done while the officer was performing his duty. That the incident took place near a polling booth on an election day has also to be taken note of. The complainant no doubt has a case that it was a case of the deceased being picked and chosen for ill-treatment and he was beaten up by a Police Constable at the instance of the appellant and the officer-in-charge of the Phoolbagan Police Station and at their behest. If that complaint were true it will certainly make the action, an offence, leading to further consequences. It is also true as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the complainant that the entries in the General Diary remain to be proved. If that complaint were true it will certainly make the action, an offence, leading to further consequences. It is also true as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the complainant that the entries in the General Diary remain to be proved. But still, it would be an offence committed during the course of the performance of his duty by the appellant and it would attract Section 197 of the Code. Going by the principle, stated by the Constitution Bench in Matajog Dobey (supra), it has to be held that a sanction under Section 197 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is necessary in this case. 14. In the matter of K. Ashok (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that it is now a well-settled principle of law that the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code may quash a criminal proceeding inter alia in the event the allegations made in the complaint petition even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence. Some of the principles which would be attracted for invoking the said jurisdiction have been laid down in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. are as under: A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint event if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. 15. After placing reliance on the aforesaid decision this Court while dealing with the petition filed by the respondent against the proposed accused against whom the complaint was dismissed in its order dated 16-3-2007 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 1286/2006 has observed that it is apparent that the respondent has not taken any prior sanction as necessary under Section 197 of Cr.PC for prosecution of the Government Officers. Admittedly, Chief Minister of the State of M.P. and other proposed accused persons are all Public Officers and they have done their official duty. Whatever administrative order passed against the respondent, therefore, for the purpose of the official duty, if any alleged offence has been committed, then criminal prosecution can only be lodged after obtaining the prior sanction as provided under Section 197 of Cr.PC. 16. Whatever administrative order passed against the respondent, therefore, for the purpose of the official duty, if any alleged offence has been committed, then criminal prosecution can only be lodged after obtaining the prior sanction as provided under Section 197 of Cr.PC. 16. Keeping in view the aforesaid position of law, which is equally applicable to the petitioner/Subhas Sojatia, the then Health Minister and the petitioner/Ashok Kumar Gupta, the then P.S. to the Health Minister, therefore, without obtaining prior sanction under Section 197 of Cr.PC the respondent cannot prosecute those petitioners. So far as the letter dated 13-7-2001 alleged to have been issued by the M.P. Nursing Home Association is concerned, from the letter itself it is evident that the letter was issued for Dr. Suresh Agrawal and not by Dr. Suresh Agrawal, therefore, it cannot be said that a false or forged letter was prepared in the name of Dr. Suresh Agrawal. So far as petitioner Dr. Rajesh Kasliwal is concerned, even if the entire evidence adduced by the respondent is taken into consideration in totality, then too, in the opinion of this Court no prima facie case is made out for constituting an offence against the petitioners. In view of this, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the impugned order and also the complaint filed by the respondent stands quashed. Copy of this order be kept in all the connected cases. C.C. as per rules.