JUDGMENT : Z.A. HAQ, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant (original complainant) has challenged the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 27th November, 2014 by which the proceedings of the complaint filed by the applicant are kept in abeyance awaiting sanction from the Government of Maharashtra under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant has also challenged the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 2nd January, 2015 by which the application filed by the applicant subsequently praying that the issue of requirement of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be reconsidered after granting hearing to the applicant, is also rejected. 4. The applicant has filed a complaint with the police station Sitabuldi, Nagpur alleging that the non-applicants/accused have committed offences punishable under Sections 120B, 166, 177, 193, 194, 195, 196, 211, 420, 465, 467, 469, 271 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant requested that F.I.R be registered and matter be investigated. As the police authorities failed to take cognizance of the complaint filed by the applicant, the applicant approached the learned Magistrate by complaint under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to direct an enquiry under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By order dated 3rd November 2014, the learned Magistrate recorded that the accusations made by the applicant against the non-applicants are required to be examined on the basis of documents placed on record and, therefore, the Court can proceed in the matter without any investigation by the police. The matter was adjourned for verification. On 27th November, 2014 after the statement of the complainant came to be recorded, the learned Magistrate directed that the proceedings be kept in abeyance awaiting sanction of the Government of Maharashtra, as required by Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After this order was passed, the applicant had filed an application seeking permission to argue on the point of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This application is dismissed by the order dated 2nd January, 2015. The applicant had filed Criminal Application (APL) No. 20/2015. After this order was passed, the applicant had filed an application seeking permission to argue on the point of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This application is dismissed by the order dated 2nd January, 2015. The applicant had filed Criminal Application (APL) No. 20/2015. By order dated 19th January, 2015 this Court dismissed the criminal application observing that in view of nature of allegations in the complaint, question of applicability of bar of Section 197 of the Code would arise. The order passed by this Court on 19th January, 2015 was challenged by the applicant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 483/2018 which is allowed by the order dated 3rd April, 2018 and the matter is remanded to this Court for considering the point of requirement of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the light of the provisions of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 the provisions of the Statutes and the Ordinances regarding the appointment, termination etc. of the non-applicants/accused. 5. It is undisputed that the non-applicant No. 7 Dr. Archana Nerkar is a Government servant. According to the Advocates for the non-applicants, at the relevant time i.e. when the offence is alleged to have been committed, the non-applicant No. 2 Dr. Vilas Shridhar Sapkal was Vice-Chancellor of the University and the non-applicant No. 8 Dr. Shashi Gulabrao Wanjari was an employee of the University. It is further pointed out that the non-applicant No. 8 is presently Vice-Chancellor of S.N.D.T. Women University. It is undisputed that the non-applicant No. 6 Dr. Shailesh Pangaonkar and non-applicant No. 10 Dr. Vandana Gajanan Bawankule are employees of private institutions. It is undisputed that the non-applicant No. 3 Dr. Neelima Deshmukh (Parse), non-applicant No. 4 Dr. A.D. Choudhari, non-applicant No. 5 Dr. Mandakini Patil are the employees of Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj University. It is further pointed out that the non-applicant No. 3 and non-applicant No. 5 have now retired. The non-applicant No. 9 Dr. Anjali Hastak is employee of Gondwana University. In my view, the provisions of Section 197(1) of the Code creates a bar for taking cognizance of offence if it is alleged that the offence is committed by a public servant who cannot be removed from his service by or without the sanction of the Government. The non-applicant No. 9 Dr. Anjali Hastak is employee of Gondwana University. In my view, the provisions of Section 197(1) of the Code creates a bar for taking cognizance of offence if it is alleged that the offence is committed by a public servant who cannot be removed from his service by or without the sanction of the Government. Section 197(1) of the Code does not create bar for taking cognizance of an offence alleged to have been committed by any (every) public servant, unless it is shown that the concerned public servant (accused) cannot be removed from his office unless Government grants sanction for such removal. 6. The Advocates for the non-applicants have not been able to point out any provision either under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 or the Ordinances and the Statutes of the University which provides that the employees of University cannot be removed from their office without there being sanction by the State Government. Therefore, in my view, the bar created by Section 197 of the Code will not be attracted in the case of non-applicant Nos. 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9. Similarly, the non-applicant Nos.6 and 10 being employees of private institutions, and as the Advocates for the non-applicants have not been able to point out that the employees of the private institutions cannot be removed without sanction from the State Government, in my view, the bar created by Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will not be attracted in their case also. 7. The point of requirement of sanction for prosecution of the non-applicant No. 2 Dr. Vilas Shridhar Sapkal, the non-applicant No. 7 Dr. Archana Nerkar and the non-applicant No. 8 Dr. Shashi Gulabrao Wanjari will require consideration. I intended to consider this point also but the material placed on record is not sufficient and the learned Advocates for the applicant and the non-applicants requested that the point of requirement of sanction for proceeding against the non-applicant Nos. 2, 7 and 8 be left open for consideration by the learned Magistrate after granting an opportunity to the parties to produce additional material on record. In the facts of the case, I find that the request made by the learned Advocates for the parties is reasonable. 8. Hence, the following order is passed: (i) The impugned orders are set aside. In the facts of the case, I find that the request made by the learned Advocates for the parties is reasonable. 8. Hence, the following order is passed: (i) The impugned orders are set aside. (ii) It is held that the bar created by Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not attracted for proceeding against the non-applicant Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10. (iii) Whether the bar created by Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is attracted in case of the non-applicant Nos.2, 7 and 8 whether sanction of State Government will be necessary before proceeding against them shall be decided by the learned Magistrate after granting an opportunity to the parties to produce additional material on record. (iv) The parties may produce the additional material on record, if so advised, within two months. (v) The learned Advocate for the applicant has prayed that he be permitted to file an application before the learned Magistrate seeking permission for separation of the trial/ proceedings. The applicant can exercise his right as per law and if such application is filed, the learned Magistrate shall consider it according to law. (vi) The applicant and the non-applicants shall appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No. 1, Nagpur on 4th January, 2019. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.