JUDGMENT : DEBI PROSAD DEY, J. 1. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 29th June, 2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court at Alipore in criminal motion no. 63 of 2014 the petitioner has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the said order of learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore. 2. An application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was moved by the present petitioner before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore and the said application was forwarded to the concerned Superintendent of Police for investigation and filing of report. It was specifically directed by learned Magistrate that such investigation has to be undertaken by a police officer above the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Superintendent of Police, South 24 Parganas directed the officer in charge of Purba Jadavpur police station to register a case and entrusted the investigation with the Additional Superintendent of Police, Alipore (opposite party no. 4). The case was registered under Section 409/348/346/506(part-II)/201/504/120B/34 of Indian Penal Code against six persons out of them three are police officers. After completion of investigation, the investigating officer, (opposite party no. 4 the then Additional Superintendent of Police) submitted a report in final form stating inter-alia that the witnesses did not support the case of the defacto complainant and the defacto complainant had set the criminal law in motion falsely in order to satisfy his ego and accordingly, the investigating officer also sought for permission for launching prosecution against the defacto complainant under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The defacto complainant thereafter filed ‘Naraji’ application before the trial Court and learned Court after being satisfied about the case of the defacto complainant and after having the report of the Authorized officer under the West Bengal Building (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993 issued process against only three persons but simultaneously, dismissed the case against the police officers under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The defacto complainant thereafter filed an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for proceeding against the investigating officer for the offence under Section 218/109/120B of the Indian Penal code. The defacto complainant thereafter filed an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for proceeding against the investigating officer for the offence under Section 218/109/120B of the Indian Penal code. Learned Magistrate held that the investigating officer prepared the case diary in such a manner so as to save the police officers and has suppressed the commission of offence under Section 13A of the (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993 and thereafter recorded his satisfaction that the defacto complainant has been able to make out a primafacie case under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code against opposite party no. 4. However, learned Magistrate thereafter personally wrote to the Home Secretary to the Government of West Bengal for sanction in terms of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prosecute Mr. Murlidhar under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The said order of learned Magistrate was challenged in revision by the petitioner and learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Alipore affirmed the order of learned magistrate in respect of issuance of process against the private persons as well as the order of dismissal passed by learned Magistrate in respect of the police officers. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore however had set aside the order by which the learned Magistrate had written to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal for obtaining sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the opposite party no. 4. 4. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the Superintendent of Police, Alipre should not have directed the officer in charge of Purba Jadavpur police station to record and register an F.I.R in that police station since the officer in charge of the police station has been arrayed as an accused. Secondly, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 3rd Court has erroneously set aside the order by which learned Magistrate has sought for the sanction from the Government of West Bengal to prosecute opposite party no. 4 who was the investigating officer of that case. It is submitted that the offence under Section 13A of the (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993 is cognizable one and opposite party no. 4 who was the investigating officer of that case. It is submitted that the offence under Section 13A of the (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993 is cognizable one and opposite party no. 4 being aware of such violation of law by the promoters did not even submit any charge sheet against the promoters and thereby the opposite party no. 4 is definitely guilty for the offence under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Advocate for the petitioner further contended that learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore was not at all justified in setting aside the said order of the learned Magistrate and accordingly the order of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge ought to be set aside. 5. Learned Advocate Mrs. Anusuya Sinha appearing on behalf of the State contended that there was absolutely no suppression of fact by the investigating officer and it is apparent from the case diary that the investigating officer duly intimated the authorized officer under the said Act to take appropriate action. It is further submitted that the investigating officer never suppressed anything but the case diary would reveal that all the necessary facts and circumstances of the case were duly investigated and recorded in the case diary by the investigating officer. Mrs. Sinha however contended that learned magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at that stage of the case and learned Magistrate has definitely committed mistake by entertaining the application in a light manner under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mrs. Sinha on behalf of the State has however supported the order of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore. Mr. Debasish Roy learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 4 contended that in order to satisfy the ego of the defacto complainant (who is an Advocate by profession), the entire case has been started and the petitioner has been prosecuting the case under reference only in order to satisfy his ego. Mr. Roy further contended that learned Magistrate has definitely committed a mistake by writing to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal for obtaining sanction against opposite party no. 4 and thereby learned Magistrate has stepped into the shoes of the defacto complainant. Mr. Roy further contended that learned Magistrate has definitely committed a mistake by writing to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal for obtaining sanction against opposite party no. 4 and thereby learned Magistrate has stepped into the shoes of the defacto complainant. It is incumbent upon the defacto complainant to obtain prior sanction against the IPS officer in order to proceed with against the said officer. It is submitted that opposite party no. 4 was entrusted with the investigation and in due discharge of his duties he has investigated the case and submitted the report in final form. Therefore, in order to prosecute opposite party no. 4 for any act or omission committed by him during investigation, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to obtain sanction from the appropriate authority and that having not been done, the order of learned Magistrate having not in accordance with law has rightly been quashed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Alipore. In support of his contention learned Advocate for the opposite party no. 4 has relied on the following decisions:— 1. (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 708 (Anil singh v. State of Bihar) 2. (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 844 (Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh v. State of Jharkhand) 3. (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 1006 (Kailash v. State of Rajasthan) 4. (2005) 8 SCC 202 : AIR 2005 SC 4413 (Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India) 5. (2005) 13 SCC 239 : AIR 2006 SC 20 (Rakesh Kr. Mishra v. State of Bihar) 6. (2009) 8 SCC 617 (State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sheetla Sahai) 7. (2004) 8 SCC 40 : AIR 2004 SC 2179 (State of Orissa through Kumari Raghavendra Singh v. Ganesh Chandra Jew) 8. (2006) 4 SCC 584 : AIR 2006 SC 1599 (Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhua Das) 9. (2009) 1 C CRLR (Cal) 310 (Jayanta Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal) 10. JT 2009 (1) SC 181 (Brindaban Das v. State of West Bengal) 6. It is therefore apparent from the materials on record that a case under Section 469/348/346/506(II)/201/504/120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against six persons out of them three were police officers. The specific allegations against the aforesaid police officers are that they had threatened the defacto complainant on behalf of the promoters. It is therefore apparent from the materials on record that a case under Section 469/348/346/506(II)/201/504/120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against six persons out of them three were police officers. The specific allegations against the aforesaid police officers are that they had threatened the defacto complainant on behalf of the promoters. During investigation it is apparent from the case diary that the investigating officer has categorically mentioned that even the mother of the defacto complaint did not support the case of the defacto complainant. The remaining witnesses also did not support the case of defacto complainant since they did not see anything with regard to such threatening or with regard to any misappropriation of funds by the promoters. During investigation the opposite party no. 4 found that the promoters obtained valid licences from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and the plan of the building under construction was duly sanctioned by the corporation. The allegations, as stipulated in the First Information Report, were not supported by substantial evidence and accordingly, report in final form praying for discharge of all the accused was filed by the investigating officer. However it came to the knowledge of the investigating officer that only the authorized officer under the said Act is empowered to stop the construction and the investigating officer accordingly requested the authorized officer to take appropriate action to that effect. The First Information Report also does not reveal any allegation under Section 13A of the (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993. No such case was registered by the police under the aforesaid section. On careful scrutiny of the case diary I find that the investigating officer was true to the mode and manner of investigation and conducted the investigation in a fair and impartial manner. The defacto complainant after being aware of filing of such report in final form, submitted a Naraji petition in the form of petition of complaint incorporating Section 13A of the (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993 and learned Magistrate after examination of the defacto complainant issued process against the promoters for violation of the aforesaid Sections but dismissed the petition of complaint in respect of the police officers. Up to this stage learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in passing such order. Up to this stage learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in passing such order. However, thereafter learned Magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction by entertaining an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for impleading opposite party no. 4 as one of the accused for suppression of material facts during investigation. 7. It is apparent from the decision reported to hereinabove:— Viz; Anil Singh v. State of Bihar (Supra) and Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh v. State of Jharkhand (Supra) Kailash v. State of Rajasthan (Supra). 8. That power of the Court to issue process against the person not sent up for trial after investigation but named in the F.I.R is limited and should be used cautiously and not mechanically. It is incumbent upon the Court while issuing the process to arrive at a reasonable conclusion that the prosecution would be able to prove the charge against the person and the Court should not be guided by fanciful imaginations and should apply the tested principles of law in the touch of the materials brought on record. In my considered view learned magistrate has definitely exceeded his jurisdiction by entertaining the application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since the complainant could not produce any document to show that the opposite party no. 4 suppressed any material during investigation or that conducted investigation in such a fashion so as to mislead the Court and thereby committed an offence under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code. The decisions reported in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (Supra), State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sheetla Sahai (Supra) and the remaining decisions referred to hereinabove by learned Advocate for opposite party no. 4 clearly enunciated the principle of law that if it is found primafacie that the act or omission for which a public servant charged had reasonable connection with discharge of his duty, it must be held to be official duty to which applicability of Section 197 cannot be disputed. This principle of law has been successively enunciated and adopted by the Apex Court. Opposite party no. 4 is an IPS officer and was posted at the relevant point of time as the Additional Superintendent of Police. He was entrusted with the investigation and accordingly he conducted the investigation in due discharge of his duty. This principle of law has been successively enunciated and adopted by the Apex Court. Opposite party no. 4 is an IPS officer and was posted at the relevant point of time as the Additional Superintendent of Police. He was entrusted with the investigation and accordingly he conducted the investigation in due discharge of his duty. A public officer conducted investigation in due discharge of his duty and even if there be any act or omission, contrary to law, in that event, it is incumbent upon the aggrieved person to obtain sanction from the appropriate authority in terms of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court is not at all competent to write to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal for obtaining sanction. Learned Magistrate has thereby stepped into the shoes of the defacto complainant by writing to the Home Secretary to the Government of West Bengal for obtaining sanction against opposite party no. 4 under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In that view of this case learned Additional District and Sessions Judge was justified in setting aside that part of the order passed by learned Magistrate. 9. In the premises set forth above I find absolutely no illegality in the order passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore. The instant application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. 10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.