JUDGMENT : This petition has been filed under Sec­tion 482 of Cr.P.C.to invoke the extra ordi­nary jurisdiction of this Court to quash the FIR of Crime No. 15/09 dated 9.1.09 reg­istered by PS-Babai, District-Hoshangabad for alleged offence punishable under Sec­tions 420, 467, 468, 471 and 409 of IPC for which ST No. 243/09 is pending in the Court of 1st Addl.Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad. 2. In brief, the case of petitioner is that petitioner was a Government Officer posted as Block Medical Officer at Community Health Centre, Babai. At that time, respon­dent no.2 Dr.Rajendra Singh was posted as CMOH in District-Hoshangabad and he was having malice and was prejudiced with the petitioner, so he has involved the peti­tioner in the aforesaid criminal case on the ground that under "Janani Suraksha Yojna" some cheques were issued and on enquiry it was found that the beneficiaries were fake persons, wrong entries were recorded that benefits were given to the ladies. As per FIR, some amounts were given to the la­dies who gave birth in the hospital, more amount was given to the ladies of rural inhabitants ratner than the urban inhabitants, complaints were made that by mentioning fake names of some persons cheques were issued and on the enquiry it was found that names were fake and actually no amount was given to them, so on this the enquiry was conducted by Revenue Officer and FIR was registered against the present petitioner as well as Jyoti Joshi and Rajkumari, em­ployees of Babai hospital. The matter was investigated and it was found that out of 10 names which were mentioned in the reg­ister and against whom cheques were is­sued, 4 ladies to whom the payment was made on the basis of residents of rural ar­eas were not the residents of concerned vil­lage. 3. After investigation, charge sheet was filed and the matter was committed for trial to the Court of Sessions and ST No. 2437 09 has been registered against the petitioner as well as against two other officials of Babai hospital. 4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, I have heard the matter fi­nally at the motion stage. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submit­ted that no sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. has been taken as the act was done in the official capacity. 6. 4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, I have heard the matter fi­nally at the motion stage. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submit­ted that no sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. has been taken as the act was done in the official capacity. 6. Learned PL for State submitted that doing forgery and embezzlement do not come under the ambit of official duty, no official is permitted to do such type of of­fences, so protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C. cannot be taken. 7.I do not wish to make any comment on the merits of the case whether sanction is required or not, that question may be agi­tated before the trial Court at the appropri­ate stage. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner has brought so many documents about the mal­ice of respondent no. 2 who happened to be the officer of petitioner. Learned counsel for State submitted that report was not ini­tiated on behalf of respondent no.2, but it was initiated on the complaint made to the Lokayukta, and firstly matter was enquired into by the Revenue Officer at the direc­tion of Collector, Hoshangabad, and on enquiry it was found that offence has been committed, so respondent no.2 has to do nothing with the prosecution of the case. 9. In State of Haryana vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others AIR 1992 SC 604 the Apex Court held that if the allegations in the com­plaint clearly constitute cognizable offence, quashing of FIR was not justified. The Apex Court further held that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have to be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 10. As far as exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are concerned, accord­ing to Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and others vs. Mohd. Sharaful Hague and another (2005) 1 SCC 122 the Apex Court held that inherent jurisdiction, though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in S.482 Cr.P.C. Power to be exer­cised ex debito justitiae to prevent abuse of process of Court, but should not be ex­ercised to stifle legitimate prosecution. If on consideration of the allegations, it ap­pears that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no ma­terial to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, the proceed­ings cannot be quashed as they are to be enquired into by the trial Court. 11. In the present case, prima facie evi­dence is there against the petitioner, hence, I don't find any ground to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under S.482 Cr.P.C. Petition being devoid of mer­its is hereby dismissed.