JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioners seek issue of writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 20.02.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (Forest Magistrate) Jammu under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure where-under respondent No.1 has been directed to investigate the case against the petitioners. 2. The background of the case: (a) Petitioner No.2 is the Commissioner whereas petitioners 1, 3 and 4 are Chief Khilafwarzi Officers of the Jammu Municipal Corporation. The petitioners 5 to 8 are the Enforcement Inspectors of Jammu Municipal Corporation working in their respective areas. (b) The respondent No.2 had started the construction of a room on the 1st floor without seeking permission from the petitioner authority as required under the J&K Control of Building Operations Act, 1988 (hereinafter called “the act of 1988”). The construction was raised under the high tension wire of the Power Development Department which was also objected to by the said department. (c) While invoking powers under the act of 1988, notices were issued under Section 7(1) and under Section 12(1) of the act of 1988 on 11.02.2014 which according to the petitioners were served upon the respondent No.2 but allegedly being a high headed person remained adamant. Ignoring the notices laid slab over the room on 13.02.2014 during the night hours. Thereafter notice under Section 7(3) of the act of 1988 dated 13.02.2014 was issued directing respondent to demolish the construction raised as without permission, within 5 days from the date of notice, with a condition that otherwise same shall be demolished at the risk and cost of the respondent. (d) Noticing defiant mood of the respondent, Joint Commissioner, Administration, Municipal Corporation Jammu vide letter dated 15.02.2014 conveyed to the Senior Superintendent of Police that the Jammu Municipal Corporation is to demolish the unauthorized construction of the respondent on 17.02.2014 at 2 PM, therefore adequate police force may be provided to maintain law and order and to avoid any untoward incident on spot. (e) Finally, the illegal construction has been demolished. 3. Respondent filed a complaint titled Jeevan Singh vs. Kiran Wattal and ors before the ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate Jammu which was assigned to the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class(Forest Magistrate) on 20.02.2014. On the same day, ld. (e) Finally, the illegal construction has been demolished. 3. Respondent filed a complaint titled Jeevan Singh vs. Kiran Wattal and ors before the ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate Jammu which was assigned to the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class(Forest Magistrate) on 20.02.2014. On the same day, ld. Judicial Magistrate endorsed the complaint to the SHO P/s Domana by recording the following order “SHO P/S Domana Jammu is directed under Section 156(3) to investigate this case under law.” 4. Dis-satisfied therewith, the petitioners have filed the instant petition projecting that in strict adherence to the law they have resorted to action, in pursuance whereof illegal construction was demolished. They have discharged their duties with all bona fides. For discharge of such duties, they are protected against any suit, prosecution or legal proceedings in terms of Section 17 of the act of 1988. Further, it is made clear that the respondent had no permission to raise the construction. Even in his complaint, he has nowhere said that he had any permission for raising the construction. The action taken against the unauthorized construction has irked the respondent, as a result whereof, he has filed a complaint based on concocted facts so as to wreak vengeance. 5. Ld. Magistrate without looking into the protection as available to the petitioners under Section 17 of the act of 1988 and without looking into the position of the petitioners having raised the construction unauthorisedly and then without looking into the other aspects in absence of resort to Section 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.PC has entertained the application for action under Section 156(3) Cr.PC. 6. The counsel for the respondent highlighted that the complaint is based on true facts. The petitioners have taken the law into their hands, without having resort to procedure as prescribed have demolished the construction contrary to the safeguards as were available to the respondent. 7. The first question which arises for consideration is as to whether petitioners have followed the procedure as prescribed by law and as to whether they have taken the action in good faith. The record reveals that on noticing the violation, notice under Section 7(1) of the act of 1988 has been served to the respondent calling upon him to show cause within a period of 48 hours from the date of service as to why the violation referred to in the notice shall not be demolished. The record reveals that on noticing the violation, notice under Section 7(1) of the act of 1988 has been served to the respondent calling upon him to show cause within a period of 48 hours from the date of service as to why the violation referred to in the notice shall not be demolished. On the same date under Section 12(1) of the act of 1988, another notice has been sent to the respondent to discontinue the operation of the unauthorized construction. Thereafter when he did not stop, the Joint Commissioner, Administration has issued the notice under Section 7(3) of the act of 1988 directing the respondent to demolish the construction within 5 days from the date of the service. When he did not respond, the petitioners initiated the action also took the help of the police and demolished the unauthorized construction. The procedure prescribed has been followed, the notices issued under Section 7(1), 7(3) have not been challenged even till date, how the respondent can claim that his unauthorized construction has been illegally demolished. The respondent is not denying the fact the he had no permission, so had unauthorizedly raised the construction. When the authorities have resorted to action, they have discharged their official duty, their good faith cannot be doubted, they have done what they were expected to do. Therefore, their action is totally protected by Section 17 of the act of 1988. Section 17 is advantageous to be quoted: “17. Protection of action taken in good faith No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against any person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or the regulations made thereunder.” 8. The respondent before filing application before the ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate was required to file an application before SHO under Section 154(1) CrPC which he in his complaint has stated to have filed without any proof, then again in case there would have been no response, he had to have resort to Section 154(3) CrPC i.e. to report the matter to the SSP which admittedly he has not. Instead he has straight way filed application before the ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate which has been assigned to the ld. Judicial Magistrate (Forest Magistrate) Jammu who without looking into the aforesaid aspects has directed investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.PC which was impermissible. 9. Instead he has straight way filed application before the ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate which has been assigned to the ld. Judicial Magistrate (Forest Magistrate) Jammu who without looking into the aforesaid aspects has directed investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.PC which was impermissible. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has rightly placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Ms. Priyanka Srivastava and another v. State of UP and others AIR 2015 Supreme Court 1758. Para 26 is advantageous to be quoted: “26. At this stage it is seemly to state that power under Section 156(3) warrants application of judicial mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the Code. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigations takes this route to harass their fellows citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same.” Again following portion from para 27 is advantageous to be quoted: “27. ………… We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed.” Then para 29 and para 30 are also advantageous to be quoted: “29. At this juncture, we may fruitfully refer to Section 32 of the SARFAESI act, which reads as follows:- “32. Protection of action taken in good faith— No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against any secured creditor or any of his officers or manager exercising any of the rights of the secured creditor or borrower for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith under this Act’. 30. In the present case, we are obligated to say that learned Magistrate should have kept himself alive to the aforesaid provision venturing into directing registration of the FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.PC. It is because the Parliament in its wisdom has made such a provision to protect the secured creditors or any of its officers, and needles to emphasize, the legislative mandate, has to be kept in mind.” 10. It is because the Parliament in its wisdom has made such a provision to protect the secured creditors or any of its officers, and needles to emphasize, the legislative mandate, has to be kept in mind.” 10. Applying the law as has been laid down, it becomes abundantly clear that the learned Magistrate has erred in directing investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.PC. In case, the proceedings are allowed to continue, that will have discouraging effect upon the authorities in taking action against the violators. More so, the protection available under Section 17 of the act of 1988 will be negated. 11. The protection in terms of Section 17 of the act of 1988 should have been taken care of by the learned Magistrate before recording the order on the application under Section 156(3) CrPC. 12. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, then the facts and circumstances and the reasons stated hereinabove, the compliant including the order dated 20.02.2014 recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Forest Magistrate) Jammu and any further proceedings on the complaint shall stand quashed. 13. Petition succeeds so shall stand disposed of as above, alongwith connected MP.