Chandra Shekhar Jha, J. – Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 and learned APP appearing for the State.

2. The present application is being filed for quashing the order dated 06.06.2018 passed in Cr. Revision No. 648 of 2018 by the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Gopalganj, whereby and whereunder, the learned trial Court has been pleased to set aside the order dated 20.04.18 passed in Complaint Case No.2693/2017 & Trial No.2326/18 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- XV, Gopalganj in cyclostyle manner by stating inter-alia that "Since the matter is under the supervision and control of C.O. Kateya and it is incumbent upon C.O. Kateya to take into serious notice and he being custodian of Reg. II suppose to be recommended to launch F.I.R. against erring person, if any, found after conducting short enquiry with intimation to court forthwith, if any manipulation has been made therein are entering of Reg. II with respect to the purchase land accordingly, narrated by the revisionist. Therefore it is hereby "ordered" that the criminal revision is hereby disposed of as stated above. Let a copy of the order be sent to C.O. concern for the needful as stated above without further delay." The Petitioners also challenges the Letter No.1029 dated 13.07.19, whereby and whereunder, Petitioner No.4 has been issued show cause as to why FIR be not instituted against him for tampering with the records of Jamabandi No.35.

3. The brief facts of the case is that a complaint was filed by Opposite Party No. 2 before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-XV, Gopalganj alleging inter-alia that petitioners have prepared document with regard their purchase land. It was also alleged that petitioners have also manipulated the entries in the Register -II.

4. Learned counsel Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra appearing for the petitioners submitted that after considering the aforesaid complain (Annexure -P/1) and taking note of statements of enquiry witnesses, it was dismissed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-XV, Gopalganj under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “Cr.P.C.”) vide order dated 20.04.2018. It is pointed out that against said order O.P. No. 2 preferred a revision petition before the Court of Sessions Judge, where without hearing the petitioners, the learned Sessions Judge directed Circle Officer (C.O.) of Kateya to lodge FIR against petitioners, which is the impugned order. It is submitted that the order without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, is not permissible under the law. In support of his submissions, learned counsel referred the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported in the matter of Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and Another vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and Others reported in (2012) 10 SCC 517, where Para- 48 and 53 pressed specifically.

5. Learned counsel also relied upon the report of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bal Manohar Jalan vs. Sunil Paswan and Another as reported in (2014) 9 SCC 640.

6. While concluding the argument, it is submitted by learned counsel that the petitioners came to know about proceedings when C.O. Kateya issued them notice as why not FIR be lodged against them in terms of impugned order.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.2, while opposing the application submitted that the impugned order cannot be said any adverse order against petitioners, rather it is the direction to an executive to take action in terms of law after short preliminary enquiry and as such same is not hit by the legal reports as referred of Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia (supra).

8. Taking counter note of the submissions, as advanced by learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.2, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order after disposal was forwarded to C.O. concerned for the needful and only in furtherance of that, notice was is