JUDGMENT : The petitioner seeks quashing of the first information report of Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 69 of 2013 registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Initially respondent No. 5 filed a complaint which was sent to the police under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. pursuant to which the FIR was registered and investigation was taken up. The informant has invariably stated that his agricultural land bearing khata no. 346/Ka (New) situated in Mouza Singaon falls under Kishanpur Anchal i.e. circle of Supaul District and its R.S. Khatian as well as chakbandi khatian stands in the joint names of his father late Maheshwar Pd. Singh and uncle Bhola Pd. Singh and Late Kameshwar Pd. Singh and its chakbandi khata is 287. Accordingly its jamabani is also running in their names. He has further alleged that he came to know on a rumour doing rounds that the accused persons were under a conspiracy to usurp his aforesaid land on the strength of papers forged at the Record room Saharsa and finally the accused nos. 1 and 2 brought the accused no. 6 in their collusion and forged a paper and got jamabandi of the land created on the basis of such forged papers in their names and favour by the accused nos. 4, 5 and 7 i.e. the writ petitioner and others. The further allegation is that on coming to know of it, he inquired about the genuineness of the cess-Re-evaluation Return, R.S. khatian of khata 346/chha (w) and Rent Reduction schedule prepared U/S 112A of the B.T. Act and came to know that all the aforesaid papers were forged and they got jamabandi of the land created with the help of the accused nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7 when he sought information in this regard form the said Record Room, he came to know that such certified copies were never issued from the record room. He further got a panchayat organized but for no gain and ultimately filed the complaint case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a Revenue Clerk and hence, he could not have been prosecuted without obtaining sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (For short “the Code”), 4. In my view, the application is misconceived. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a Revenue Clerk and hence, he could not have been prosecuted without obtaining sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (For short “the Code”), 4. In my view, the application is misconceived. The allegations made in the first information report do attract ingredients of the offences alleged. 5. The matter is under investigation. The petitioner being a class-III government servant is not protected under Section 197 of the Code. Even otherwise, no protection under Section 197 of the Code would be available to the accused when the offence is committed in course of discharge of official duty by a public servant relates to cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, etc. Such offence cannot be said to be committed by public servant while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty. 6. In Bholu Ram Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.2009 (1) EastCrC 157(SC) : AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 550, the Supreme Court held that the offences alleged to have committed by a public servant under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC cannot be regarded as having been committed while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty and the proceedings initiated against the public servant should not be quashed for want of sanction. 7. In State of U.P. Vs. Paras Nath Singh [AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 1615], the Supreme Court held as under:- “10. That apart, the contention of the respondent that for offences under Sections 406 and 409 read with Section 120-B of the IPC sanction under Section 197 of the Code is condition precedent for launching the prosecution is equally fallacious. This Court has stated the legal position in S.R. Munnipalli v. State of Bombay [ 1955 (1) SCR 1177 and in Amrik Singh v. State of Pepsu [1955 RD-SC 9] that it is not every offence committed by a public servant, which requires sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Code, nor even every act done by him while he is actually engaged in the performance of his official duties. Following the above legal position it was held in Harihar Prasad etc. Following the above legal position it was held in Harihar Prasad etc. v. State of Bihar [ 1972 (3) SCC 89 ] as follows:- “ As far as the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B, read with Section 409, Indian Penal Code is concerned and also Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is concerned, they cannot be said to be of the nature mentioned in Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. To put it shortly, it is no part of the duty of a public servant, while discharging his official duties, to enter into a criminal conspiracy or to indulge in criminal misconduct. Want of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is, therefore, nor bar” 11. Above views are reiterated in State of Kerala v. Padmanabhan Nair, 1999 (2) EastCrC 220 (SC) : 1999 (5) SCC 690 . Both Amrik Singh (supra) and S.R. Munnipalli (supra) were noted in that case. Sections 467, 468 and 471, IPC relate to forgery of valuable security, Will etc; forgery for purpose of cheating and using as genuine a forged document respectively. It is not part of the duty of a public servant while discharging his official duties to commit forgery of the type covered by the aforesaid offences. Want of sanction under Section 197 of the Code is, therefore, no bar.” 8. In State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Arun Gulab Gawali & Ors. [AIR 2010 Supreme Court 3762], it has been held by the Supreme Court that powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing criminal proceeding has to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 9. In Bharat Amratlal Kothari and Another v. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi and Others 2010 (1) EastCrC 117 (SC) : (2010) 1 SCC 234 , it has been held the powers under Articles 226 of the Constitution cannot be exercised to quash the FIR if prima facie commission of offence is made out. 10. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court as referred under the preceding paragraph, in my opinion, no case for quashing the FIR is made out. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.