ORDER : Heard the parties. 2. The petitioners have filed the present application under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. for quashing of the order, dated 09.09.2013, passed by Shri P.K. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Bagaha, West Champaran in Tr. No. 2770 of 2013 (Arising out of complaint case No. C-864 of 2012), whereby and where under, the learned Magistrate finding a prima facie case under Section 506 of the I.P.C. against the petitioners, ordered for issuance of processes against them. 3. Prosecution story as per complaint petition in short is that a complaint petition has been lodged by the opposite party no. 2, stating therein inter alia that the petitioners who are the police officers, came to his house and abused her and demanded Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand) and, thereafter, assaulted her by fists and slaps, saying that they are Government rangdar and if she will not give Rs. 20,000/-, they will implicate her in false cases so that she will have to leave the village. It is also alleged that for the last 15 days, the accused persons were continuously demanding Rs. 20,000/- and upon non fulfilment of the said demand, they used to threaten the complainant. 4. On the basis of the same, Complaint Case No. C864 of 2012 was instituted against the petitioners under various Sections of Indian Penal Code and the same was transferred to the Court of Shri P.K. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bagaha, West Champaran, who after enquiry found prima facie case under Section 506 of the I.P.C. against the petitioners, hence ordered for issuance of summons vide order dated 09.09.2013, which is under challenged in the present application. 5. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that petitioner no. 1 is the officer-in-charge of Bhitaha police station, and petitioner no. 2 is also a police officer posted in same police station and the present complaint case is a malafide and malicious one lodged against them as several cases are going on in between two groups, out of which one Nathuni Kushwaha had lodged Thakaraha (Bhitaha) P.S. Case No. 100 of 2012 under various Sections of Indian Penal Code in which death of son of opposite party no. 2 was caused in which, Tufani Mahto and others are accused in that case and a counter case bearing Thakaraha (Bhitaha) P.S. Case No. 101 of 2012 was lodged by Tufani Mahto in which informant and other were accused persons and petitioner no. 2 was the investigating officer of the said Thakaraha (Bhitaha) P.S. Case No. 101 of 2012 and when in that connection he visited the village Binohi at the darwaza of Nathuni Kushwaha, accused persons including son of opposite party no. 2 started abusing and assaulting him and prevented the petitioner no. 2 and other in discharging their official duty. As such another case was lodged being the Thakaraha (Bhitaha) P.S. Case No. 104 of 2012 against several accused persons including son of opposite party no. 2. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that present complaint case has been filed by the opposite party no. 2 to save her son and others. On the basis of the above submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners, the plea taken by the petitioners are as follows: (i) petitioners are the police officials as such before initiating the proceeding against them, sanction from the proper authority is required to be taken as provided under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. (ii) Whole prosecution case against the petitioners is malicious and malafide and has been filed only to put pressure upon the petitioners to save the son of the opposite party no. 2 and others. (iii) So far offence under Section 506 of the I.P.C., is concerned, as per Section 106 of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 it is triable by Gram Kachahary and Section 113 of the above Act, bar the jurisdiction of Criminal Court, but in spite of that learned Magistrate without appreciating the above facts, ordered for issuance of proceedings. (iv) Once the learned Magistrate after enquiry, has not found the offences under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 384 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, on the basis of the same evidence, he ought not to have issued processes against the petitioners under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. (iv) Once the learned Magistrate after enquiry, has not found the offences under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 384 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, on the basis of the same evidence, he ought not to have issued processes against the petitioners under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for State has submitted that in the facts of the complaint petition, sanction is not required as it is well established principle of law that sanction is not required where the Government servant has exceeded its jurisdiction in exercise of his public duties and allegations relates to the criminal act of public servant and so far as malicious proceeding is concerned, the materials available on the record against the petitioners, cannot be brushed aside as there is specific allegation of demand of Rs. 20,000/- against these petitioners and on non fulfilment of the said demand they will implicate the complainant in other cases and hence the complainant will have to leave the village and as such there is nothing illegal in the impugned order. 7. Heard both sides, perused the records as well as impugned order, this case is of the year 2013 and is still pending for admission and notices were not issued to opposite party no. 2 uptil now. Further from perusal of the impugned order, it appears that after enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate has held that evidences of the witnesses are contradictory in comparison of solemn affirmation of the complainant and not found prima facie case under Section 341, 323, 504 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code, however, he held that a prima facie case under Section 506 of the I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner on the basis of same materials and ordered for issuance of processes against the petitioners. 8. In a complaint case, where the complaint is placed for enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., the purpose behind that is the learned Magistrate has a chance to test the veracity of allegation and only being satisfied of prima facie case, he shall order for issuance of process under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. 9. 8. In a complaint case, where the complaint is placed for enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., the purpose behind that is the learned Magistrate has a chance to test the veracity of allegation and only being satisfied of prima facie case, he shall order for issuance of process under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. 9. However, in the present case he has found the evidence during examination of witnesses under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., contrary to the solemn affirmation of the complainant and not found prima facie against the petitioner under Section 323, 341, 384 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, but still on the same evidence, found a prima facie case under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code in spite of the fact that the petitioners are the police officials and their false implication cannot be ruled out. 10. No doubt opposite party no. 2 has not appeared in this case and even notices were not issued, however as this application is pending since 2013, as such instead of keeping the case pending, to my opinion to the ends of justice will be served, if the case is remanded back to learned Magistrate to consider it afresh on the basis of materials available on record and pass an appropriate order after hearing the complainant, without being prejudiced by the order of this Court. 11. Hence, the impugned order, dated 09.09.2013, passed by Shri P.K. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bagaha, West Champaran in Tr. No. 2770 of 2013, is quashed; the matter is remanded back to learned Court below to pass an order afresh. 12. Accordingly, with the above observation, this application is allowed.