ORDER : Praveer Bhatnagar, J. The petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C against the order dated 23.08.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Revision No.17/2023, by which the learned Court below has dismissed the Revision Petition and affirmed the order dated 13.04.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No.493/2019, whereby charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468 471 & 120B IPC were framed. 2. In the nutshell, brief facts of the case are that the complainant Mahaveer Singh has submitted a compliant before the learned trial court alleging that a plot situated in Ward No.24, new Ward No.29 is in his possession, which he purchased from Ram Chandra Vakil on 19.05.2004 through agreement. The accused Bharat Singh while hatching the conspiracy with accused Dinesh and Ravi Kumar, concealing the fact of possession of the complainant get issued the forge Patta dated 28.07.2017 from Municipal Board, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh. In the complaint it is also stated that the Municipal Board, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh did not make site inspection and issue the forge Patta. 3. On the basis of the above, a case was registered under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468 471 & 120B IPC and after investigation police has charge sheeted the present petitioner under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468 471 & 120B IPC. 4. The learned trial court vide impugned order dated 13.04.2023 framed charges under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468 471 & 120B IPC against the present petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the employee of the Municipal Board, Bhadra District Hanumangarh and posted as LDC in the Land Section and being a public servant while discharging his official duty he entered the name and address in the disputed document. He further submits that as per provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C no sanction was obtained to prosecute the present petitioner by the concerned investigating officer. The learned trial court as well as the revisional Court did not consider the fact that without prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C charges could not have been framed against the present petitioner, therefore, the order of learned trial court as well as the revisional court is against the provisions of law. 6. The learned trial court as well as the revisional Court did not consider the fact that without prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C charges could not have been framed against the present petitioner, therefore, the order of learned trial court as well as the revisional court is against the provisions of law. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jagraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.3795/2016 decided on 26.08.2017, wherein the Misc Petition was allowed and it was held that the petitioner was not having any role whatsoever, so as to make out a case against him for the offences under Sections 167 & 193 IPC. The petitioner being a public servant has to be protected by Section 197 Cr.P.C and is covered by the precedental law cited by counsel for the petitioner as there is no direct allegation upon him for cheating, fabrication or misappropriation while discharging the official duty. The coordinate Bench also reached to the conclusion that at the most, the petitioner is accountable for the supervisory negligence. He further submits that the act of the petitioner falls within the ambit of his official duty and he has not exceeded his duties. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner did not challenge the charge-sheet filed after thorough investigation and the cognizance order passed by the learned trial court. He further submits that there is enough material on record which indicates that petitioner in conspiracy with the other accused Bharat Singh forged the Patta while fabricating the signature of Executive Officer- Devendra Kumar Sharma. He further submits that the petitioner in conspiracy with the main accused Bharat Singh knowingly that without application charges for issuance of Patta were deposited by the beneficiary Bharat Singh issued the said Patta. The act of the petitioner falls beyond the scope of his official duty. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor relies upon the judgment of Inspector of Police and another v. Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam and another reported in 2015 AIR SCW 3282. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: "The alleged indulgence of the officers in cheating, fabrication of records or misappropriation cannot be said to be in discharge of their official duty. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor relies upon the judgment of Inspector of Police and another v. Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam and another reported in 2015 AIR SCW 3282. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: "The alleged indulgence of the officers in cheating, fabrication of records or misappropriation cannot be said to be in discharge of their official duty. Their official duty is not to fabricate records or permit evasion of payment of duty and cause loss to the Revenue. Unfortunately, the High Court missed these crucial aspects. The learned Magistrate has correctly taken the view that if at all the said view of sanction is to be considered, it could be done at the stage of trial only." 9. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record of the case as well as the law cited by both the parties, this Court is of the opinion that prima facie there is enough material against the present petitioner regarding fabrication of records and issuing the forge Patta in favour of accused Bharat Singh. The learned revisional court after perusing the entire material reached to the following conclusion: - mijksDr rdksZ ds laca/k esa i=koyh dk voyksdu djsa rks ckn vuqla/kku vkjksi i= esa ;s rF; tkfgj fd;s x;s gS fd fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk vU; vfHk;qDrx.k ls feyhHkxr dj uxjikfydk Hkknjk esa fcuk vkosnu fd;s fookfnr IykWV dh d`f"kHkwfe fu;eu 'kqYd 43]100@& :i;s] yht jkf'k 1803@& :i;s okf"kZd o 8 o"kZ dh vfxze ,deq'r 16]227@& :i;s dqy jkf'k 59]327@& :i;s tfj, QthZ jlhn la[;k 11@38 fnukad 12-06-17 dks uxjikfydk Hkknjk ds jktdks"k esa tek crkdj 1]000@& :i;s ds LVkEi ij QthZ yht MhM rS;kj dj lc jftLVkj egksn; ds uke ls yht MhM iath;u gsrq QthZ i= rS;kj dj lHkh nLrkost ij uxj ikfydk Hkknjk dh eksgj yxkdj rRdkyhd bZvks Jh nsosUnz dqekj 'kekZ ds QthZ gLrk{kj dj uxjikfydk Hkknjk ds fMLisp jftLVj ds QthZ Øekd ua- 2218 fnukad 27-07-17 dh eksgj yxkdj 28-07-17 dks jlhn ua- 201702418003722 ls iVVk iath;u djok;k x;k gSA 10. Thus, it is apparent that the act of the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of Section 197 Cr.P.C. Petitioner was not authorized to issue any Patta. The Patta is required to be issued by the concerned Executive Officer of the concerned Municipality. Thus, it is apparent that the act of the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of Section 197 Cr.P.C. Petitioner was not authorized to issue any Patta. The Patta is required to be issued by the concerned Executive Officer of the concerned Municipality. The petitioner forged the signature of the Executive Officer Devendra Kumar Sharma and also put the seal of the said officer and issued the forge Patta. 11. In the case of Shambhoo Nath Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors; (1997) 5 SCC 326 the Hon'ble Apex Court held as below: - "5. The question is when the public servant is alleged to have committed the offence of fabrication of record or misappropriation of public fund etc. can be said to have acted in discharge of his official duties? It is not the official duty of the public servant to fabricate the false record and misappropriate the public funds etc. in furtherance of or in the discharge of his official duties. The official capacity only enables him to fabricate the record or misappropriate the public fund etc. It does not mean that it is integrally connected or inseparably interlinked with the crime committed in the course of same transaction, as was believed by the learned Judge. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the view expressed by the High Court as well as by the trial Court on the question of sanction is clearly illegal and cannot be sustained." 12. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner while discharging his official duty as public servant transgressed his domain and fabricated the Patta in favour of accused Bharat Singh. Such an act of an public servant is certainly beyond his duties. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders dated 13.04.2023 and 23.08.2023 respectively. 13. Resultantly, the instant Criminal Misc. Petition is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed. 14. All pending applications also stand dismissed.