Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of parties.

2. This is a revision by an accused. A few facts may be stated thus: The applicant is a police officer. At the relevant time he was working as in-charge of the Police Station Civil Lines, Akola. On 02.12.96 the non applicant No.1 had lodged a report with the police station Civil Lines, Akola. He had alleged that his daughter-in-law along with her relative had committed robbery, trespass and theft. The police refused to take cognizance of the said complaint of Bhaurao i.e. non applicant No.1. Non applicant No.1, therefore, filed criminal complaint case bearing No. 1280/01 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class. The Judicial Magistrate First Class in the said criminal complaint passed an order under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and directed the police to investigate into the matter. On this an offence was registered by the police. Initially the offence was investigated by P. S. I. Aney and later since the offence is of a serious nature the investigation was taken over by the present applicant. The present applicant filed an application under Section 169 Criminal Procedure Code before the Magistrate after the investigation and prayed for discharge of the accused therein. The present applicant also filed a summary before the Judicial Magistrate. Judicial Magistrate First Class did not accept the summary and issued a process against the accused named in that complaint case. It is after that order was passed that Bhaurao the present non applicant No.1 instituted a criminal complaint against the present applicant under Section 468, 471 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. In the said complaint case the present applicant filed an application to dismiss the complaint. The said application was dismissed on the ground that no sanction was obtained by the complainant to prosecute the present applicant. The Magistrate after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint on the ground that sanction was not obtained and the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 161 of the Bombay Police Act. The present non applicant No.1 therefore preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge. The revision was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Magistrate with a direction that he will deal with the question of sanction under Section 197 Criminal Procedure Code and Section 161 of the Bombay Police Act after recording the evidence before charge and on hearing both the sides. Being aggrieved by that order the accused/applicant has preferred this revision.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the non applicant.

5. From the facts narrated above it is clear that the complaint was referred to police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an offence came to be registered against the present applicant/accused. It is also clear that one Sujata and Vijay were arrested in that case and later the investigation was taken over by the present applicant. It also appears that soon thereafter discharge report under Section 169 of Criminal Procedure Code was filed before the Magistrate and later B Summary was filed instead of a charge sheet. B Summary covers the following cases: Class 'B' cases: Wherein no offence has been committed at all either by the accused or by any one else, but wherein the complaint is found to be false and maliciously false. Along with the said summary was sent a statement of one Deepak said to be recorded under Section 161. The learned Magistrate rejected the summary and recorded statement of complainant and his witnesses and issued process against the accused. It is the contention of the non applicant that Deepak gave a statement before the Magistrate that no police officer had ever come to record his statement. It is the contention that although Deepak never gave a statement to police a statement purporting to be given by him was sent with B Summary. It is also contended that this w