JUDGMENT Heard Sri R.C. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.N.Tiwari for the caveator and learned AGA for respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of an FIR, which is an outcome of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 3. The contention of Sri R.C.Singh is that the allegations made against the petitioner do not make out any case for prosecution or any offence so as to prosecute the petitioner who has discharged his official duties in good faith and he seeks protection of Section 334 of U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act, 1950. The said section is extracted hereunder: "Section 334 Protection of action taken under this Act: - (1) No officer or servant of the Government shall be liable in any civil or criminal proceeding in respect of any act done or purporting to be done under this Act or under any rules made thereunder, if the act was done in good faith and in the course of execution of the duties or the discharge of function, imposed by or under this Act. (2) No suit or other legal proceedings shall lie against the state Government for any damage caused or likely to be caused or any injury suffered or likely to be suffered by virtue of any provisions of this Act or by anything in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of this Act or any rules made thereunder." 4. The contention is that after the proposal for allotment of land was prepared, the same was forwarded with a report of all the Revenue Officials including Kanoongo, Nayab Tehsildar and Tehsildar whereafter the Sub Divisional Officer has approved the same. He therefore submits that the allegation against the petitioner of having prepared any documents are not correct and are against the weight of evidence on record. In essence, the submission is that there is no material so as to castigate the petitioner or prosecute him for the alleged offence. He further submits that no case is made out under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well and therefore the imposition of an alleged offence under the said Act is also without any substance. 5. In essence, the submission is that there is no material so as to castigate the petitioner or prosecute him for the alleged offence. He further submits that no case is made out under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well and therefore the imposition of an alleged offence under the said Act is also without any substance. 5. Opposing the petition, Sri A.N.Tiwari submits that the investigation has been carried out and during the course of investigation, the members of the Land Management Committee as well as the Village Pradhan have got their statements recorded before the investigating officer that leaves no room for doubt that the entire documentation work was carried out by the petitioner without participation of the members and without holding any meeting. He further submits that as a matter of fact no notice was ever circulated nor the members were made aware of any meeting of the Land Managing Committee or any such resolution proposed to be passed under any agenda. He further contends that the petitioner being a Lekhpal of the village and also ex-officio, Secretary of the Land Managing Committee, he has not acted in good faith and has rather wrongfully and with a view to provide undue advantage and benefits to individuals has misused his official position for the same. He further submits that the act alleged falls within an offence defined under Section 13 of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988. He, therefore, deserves to be prosecuted. 6. Learned AGA contends that on prima facie a perusal of the allegations, it cannot be said at this stage that no offence is made out and the same is subject to evidence. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the submissions raised, the allegations which have been made and are the basis of the criminal prosecution launched clearly alleged that the documents were manipulated and forged resulting in allotment of land to 48 persons who were totally ineligible. Not only this, the papers were prepared by the petitioner without convening the meeting of the Land Managing Committee and without any notice to the members. These allegations are sought to be supported on the material evidence collected during investigation indicating deliberate avoidance of statutory duties that reflects absence of good faith. 8. Not only this, the papers were prepared by the petitioner without convening the meeting of the Land Managing Committee and without any notice to the members. These allegations are sought to be supported on the material evidence collected during investigation indicating deliberate avoidance of statutory duties that reflects absence of good faith. 8. Sri R.C. Singh then submits that as a matter of fact, such proceedings are amenable to challenge or raised in an enquiry undertaken under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R Act, which proceedings are admittedly pending and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed any offence when the subject matter of offence is still under enquiry and is pending. We are unable to agree for the simple reason that the said enquiry is with regard to the regularity or irregularity of the the proceedings and are not with regard to any allegations of alleged misuse of official position as alleged in the FIR. The provisions of Section 13, therefore cannot be said to have been wrongly applied at least at this stage. The allegations are such that they indicate the involvement of the entire hierarchy upto the level of the Sub Divisional Officer that have been made in the application. 9. On perusal of the FIR, thus, in our opinion no case is made out for quashing of the FIR. This petition lacks merit and is accordingly rejected.