ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ application for quashing of the First Information Report (for short FIR) giving rise to Kankarbagh P.S. Case No. 22 of 2015 registered on 11.1.2015 under Sections 109, 120-B, 218 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short PC Act, 1988). By way of filing a supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has also assailed the order dated 5.1.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short CrPC) in Complaint Case No. 30105(C) of 2014, as contained in Annexure-2 to the present application, pursuant to which the aforesaid FIR was registered and investigation was taken up.

2. At the outset, let it be noted that initially after hearing the parties, vide order dated 26.03.2015, this Court had stayed the further proceedings of Kankarbagh P.S. Case No. 22 of 2015 and had adjourned the case at the request of the informant (for the sake of convenience complainant) of the case for filing of counter affidavit. Later on, apart from filing several counter affidavits, the complainant has filed an interlocutory application vide I.A. No. 748 of 2015 for vacating the interim order of stay granted on 26.03.2015 by this Court. The writ application and the interlocutory application have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order.

3. The aforesaid complaint was filed by one M.P. Srivastava in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, alleging irregularities in Employees' Provident Fund Organization (for short EPFO) with regard to ad hoc promotions of the employees of the EPFO. In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that the employees of the EPFO are involved in corrupt practices for which the complainant time to time made complaints vide different letters. Reference is made to letter dated 27.7.2014, wherein specific allegation against few officers involved in corrupt practices, has been made and upon inaction on the part of the authority, a legal notice dated 26.10.2014 was issued to all the five accused persons including the petitioner named in the complaint. The said legal notice dated 26.10.2014 forms part of the complaint. It is alleged that the officers promoted to the post of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioners from the post of Enforcement Officers/Accounts Officers on ad hoc basis have been allowed to avail ad hoc promotions beyond one year from the date of their initial promotions and they have been allowed to draw higher scale and other privileges, which resulted into loss to the State exchequer. It is alleged that no ad hoc promotion could have been extended beyond a period of one year without approval of the Department of Personnel and Training (for short DoPT), Government of India, whereas the accused no.1, K.K. Jalan, Central Provident Fund Commissioner had been extending ad hoc promotions beyond one year in many cases in absence of approval of the DoPT. It is further alleged that despite more than fifty complaints sent to the authorities of the EPFO, no action has been taken to set the things right and, as such, it is alleged that the accused named in the complaint with intent to cheat and misuse the public fund have been acting in violation of the various instructions/laws.

4. As noted above, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, referred the aforesaid complaint to the police under Section 156(3) of the CrPC for investigation, vide order dated 5.1.2015, pursuant to which the FIR, in question, has been instituted.

5. Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has sought to question the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, inter-alia, on the ground that such complaint at the instance of private individual could not have been acted upon in absence of valid sanction for prosecuting public servant against whom charges have bee