ORDER Heard learned senior counsel/counsel for the parties. 2. Leave granted. 3. The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Writ Petition No.400 of 2023 by which, the petition filed by the appellant seeking quashing of the complaint bearing R.C.C. No.171 of 2022 filed against him by the respondent no.2-complainant has been dismissed. 4. The appellant is arrayed as an accused in a private complaint bearing R.C.C. No.171 of 2022 filed by the respondent no.2/complainant. As per the complaint, the appellant, who was the Sub-Divisional Officer of Paithan, District Aurangabad, Maharashtra, is alleged to have helped the respondent no.3/ co-accused, who was the Tehsildar of the area and facilitated the illegal mining of sand in that area. 5. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the allegation is patently absurd on the face of it. It was contended that when the respondent no.3 went on leave and did not report for duty for two days just because the appellant had made a request to the Collector of the District to post someone else as Tehsildar in place of respondent no.3, the appellant is accused of conniving with the other co-accused as also the sand mafia. It was contended that no sense comes out of such allegation for the reason that there is absolutely no direct link between the appellant and the sand mafia and as per the case of the respondent no.2-complainant also, it is the respondent no.3/Tehsildar, who was the person who had been allowing such illegal mining of sand. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the direction for investigation to the police is not only malafide but an abuse of the process of law and an unnecessary harassment to the appellant, who is a responsible public servant having a clean record. 6. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the direction for investigation to the police is not only malafide but an abuse of the process of law and an unnecessary harassment to the appellant, who is a responsible public servant having a clean record. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1-State submitted that he would be satisfying the Court only with regard to the allegation made by the appellant against the Collector inasmuch as, in the communication made to the respondent no.3 with regard to the date on which he had to appear for inquiry, there being a typographical error, subsequently the same was corrected and most importantly, this change does not prejudice the case of either side as it is only related to the date on which the inquiry was to be held. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2-complainant submitted that the appellant, being the Sub-Divisional Officer, was party to the illegal mining of sand since he defended an officer by permitting somebody else to take his place thereby, saving him from the penal consequences of his misdeed. 8. Having considered the matter in its entirety and going through the material on record, we are of the opinion that a case for interference is made out. 9. At the outset, we may indicate that upon assistance from the learned counsel for the parties especially, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2, we are still not clear as to actually what is the allegation out of which, any misconduct, much less criminal liability is made out against the appellant. The allegation against the appellant of requesting the District Collector to post another person in place of the respondent no.3-co-accused, in our view, not only is perfectly inline with his call of duty but also serves a salutary purpose for the reason that when the respondent no.3 went on leave and did not respond, in order to ensure that the work of the office held by the respondent no.3 was not hampered vis-a-viz, the general functioning and duty towards the public, a replacement being asked for and posted, can by no stretch be construed as a misconduct, much less having any criminal intent or liability. 10. 10. We further note the fact that though against respondent no.3, there are some inquiries by the Anti-Corruption Bureau which are pending, but as far as the appellant is concerned, there is no such proceeding pending against him. This has been confirmed by both the learned senior counsel for the appellant and also by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1-State of Maharashtra. 11. In the aforesaid background, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Writ Petition No.400 of 2023 is set aside and the complaint case bearing R.C.C. No.171 of 2022 filed by the respondent no.2/complainant as against the appellant stands quashed. 12. However, we make it clear that the present order has been passed only with regard to the allegation made by the respondent no.2-complainant against the appellant in a complaint case being R.C.C. No.171 of 2022 and shall have no bearing in any other proceeding, either pending or proposed. 13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.