The High Court does not have the jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding initiated against a person at the stage of transfer of the case to another magistrate for enquiry and trial, as such an order is interlocutory in nature and revision against any such order is barred under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Chaudhary Sia Saran Sinha, J.

1. After describing the order dated 20-11-1978 (Annexure 2), (hereinafter referred to as, the impugned order)as illegal and without jurisdiction, the petitioner who is a Subdivisional officer. Rohtas Sadar, has sought for the quashing of the criminal proceeding initiated against him in Complaint Case no.493 of 1978, Nagendra Nath sinha v, S. S. Sinha macrand, pending in the court of Shri S. N. Mahto, judicial Magistrate at Sassaram.

2. Oppisite-party No.2 of this application, who filed the instant complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sassaram, and one Shri kamal Bahadur were, the two contestants for the post of chairmanship of sassam Municipality. This gave rise to the decision as to who should be a successful candidate by lots, as Rule 70 of the Bihar Municipal Elections and election Petitions Rules, 1953 (hereinafter referred to "the Rules". This Rule further provides that if the number of votes recorded for each of the candidates who obtain the least number of votes is equal, one of those candidates shall be eliminated by drawing lots in such manner as the Returning Officer may determine. Instead of deciding the lot by tossing the coin, the petitioner decided the same by means of slips, as referred to in the petition at page 3, in which Shri Kamal Bahadur was declared as elected. It is in this background that the unsuccessful candidates, Shri Nagendra Nath Sinha, filed the instant complaint against the petitioner, who in his capacity as sub Divisional Officer acted as the Returning Officer for the said election alleging offences under Sections 166 and 167 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. On receipt of the complaint, the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the case was transferred by him to one Shri S. N. Mahto, Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram, under section 192 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for enquiry and trial and he ordered for the records being put up to him on 6-12-1978. Before the records could be put up before Sri S. N. Mahto, on 5-12-197s itself the petitioner rushed to this Court and filed the instant application under Sec.482 of the Code, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against him.

4. Shri Prabha Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised four contentions The first was that before passing the impugned order the Chief Judicial Magistrate had not applied his judicial mind and thus the order for transfer of the case is wrong. The second contention was that the transfer of the case under Sec.192 (1) of the Code for enquiry was illegal and in the alternative that even if that was legally possible, the report of enquiry held by the transferee Magistrate had to be submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The third contention of Shri mishra was that the allegations in the complaint petition did not constitute the offences alleged and lastly that the prosecution of the petitioner without obtaining sanction under Sec.197 of the Code was illegal While refusing these contentions, Shri Gorakh Nath Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, seriously contended that this application was premature, the impugned order, being interlocutory in nature, and revision against any such order being barred under the provisions of sub- section (2) of Sec.397 of the Code, it was not a fit case for invoking the inherent powers of this Court at this stage According to Shri Singh, the appropriate stage for the petitioner to move this court under Sec.482 of the Code would be after Sri S. N. Mahto passed order, if any for issue of processes against the petitioner. I shall first take up the last contention raised by Shri gorakh Nath Singly namely, the maintainability of this application at this stage.

5. In the instant case the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance merely for the initiation of the proceeding and left