In this petition, the petitioner has prayed tor quashing the order dated 18th December, 2003 passed in P.C.A. No. 346 of 2003fT.R. NO.1263 of 2003 by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka and also for quashing the entire criminal prosecution launched against him.

2. The petitioner is the District Transport Officer, Dumka. Against him, the complaint has been lodged by the complainant, a transport bus owner.

3. In the complaint case, it has been alleged that the petitioner checked the complainant's vehicle on 25th July, 2003 and seized his tax token, insurance papers and other papers and asked the driver to inform the owner to meet the petitioner. The complainant went to meet the petitioner at his residence the next day in the morning, where the petitioner illegally demanded Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) for releasing his papers. The allegation of the complainant is that the petitioner has committed an offence under Sections 162, 166, 385, 500, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. On the said allegations, the learned Court below vide order dated 18th December, 2003 took cognizance of the offences• under Sections 385, 500, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and has issued process against the petitioner, requiring his attendance.

5. The said order taking cognizance and the entire criminal proceedings have been assailed in this petition on the ground that the prosecution case is false and malicious and that they do not constitute the alleged offences. The story made out in the complaint petition is improbable and unbelievable. The petitioner, who is a responsible public officer of the Transport Department, has been sought to be falsely implicated with oblique motive by the Opposite Party No.2. It has been stated that the allegations are absurd, wild and absolutely baseless and the learned Magistrate has mechanically taken cognizance of the said offences against the petitioner even without required legal sanction for prosecution under Section 197 Cr.P.C. It has been stated that the petitioner is the Government official and implicating him in such frivolous case is a sheer abuse of process of law.

6. Notice was issued to the complainant-Opposite Party No.2, who has appeared and filed his reply to the petition. It has been stated, inter alia, that the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magis- trate has considered the complaint and materials on record and has taken cognizance on the basis thereof and there is no arbitrariness and illegality in the impugned order taking cognizance. The Government Employees are not exempted from the criminal prosecution, if they commit some illegality.

7. It has been stated that there is an allegation of demand of illegal gratification and it cannot be said that the same has got any concern with the official duty of the petitioner and as such, sanction for. prosecution, as envisaged under Section 197 Cr.P.C., is not warranted.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party NO.2 relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Shri S.K. Zutshi & Anr. VS. Shri Simal Debnath & Anr. [2004(3) JLJR (SC)303]. It has been submitted that there is no illegality in the order taking cognizance and that the criminal proceeding against the petitioner is not an abuse of process of law. and there is no merit in this case.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. From perusal of the complaint (Annexure-1), it is clear that the Opposite Party No. 2 has himself stated that when the documents of vehicle were seized by the petitioner, who was then District Transport Officer, he went to the residence of the petitioner early in the next morning at 7.30 A.M. for release of the same. There, the petitioner demanded illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/-.

10. In the instant case, the Opposite Party No.2, on the one hand, has alleged that the seizure of the documents was illegal and, on the other hand, he had himself visited the petitioner's residence early in the n