The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. for prosecution of public servants and the consideration of sanction at any stage of proceedings.

ORDER

Vijay Kumar Shukla, J. - The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the complaint Case No.14883/2020 and also the order dated 25.06.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.7915/2021 passed by fourth Additional District & Sessions Judge, Indore.

2. Facts of the case are that the petitioners are police officers at the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) in the M.P. Police Department. The petitioner No.1 is posted at Azad Nagar Police Station-Indore and the petitioner No.2 is posted at Bercha Police Station - Shajapur and they were posted in the same police station at the time of the alleged incident. The respondent/complainant is retired police officer. Before his retirement he was posted at Bercha District Shajapur on the post of Thana In-charge from 3.10.2015 to 28.02.2017. On 27.02.2017 respondent/complainant sold his home appliances and other articles to one Firoz Jillani. Thereafter on non-payment of installments by Firoz, as per the agreement respondent/complainant filed a complaint and requested to register a case against Firoz Jillani for fraud and cheating at Police Station Shajapur. In the above-mentioned transaction Firoz also filed complaint against respondent/complainant for taking money by defrauding him. For the purpose of the aforesaid complaints the respondent/complainant was not cooperating and not responding to the phone calls of the officer-in-charge. Therefore, Rojnamcha No.08 dated 27.06.2017 was recorded and petitioner No.2 was directed to go to Indore for service of notice on the respondent/complainant after recording the rojnamcha No.07 dated 27.08.2017. In order to enquire/investigate the aforesaid complaints, a notice was issued to the respondent to remain present before the Thana In-charge (TI), Police Station-Bercha, Shajapur. Thereafter the petitioner No.2 went to the Azad Nagar Police station to serve notice as the respondent/complainant is a resident within the Azad Nagar police station area, Indore. The petitioner No.2 reached at Azad Nagar police station on 28.06.2017 at 17:46 pm to serve notice to the respondent/complainant, here the petitioner No.1 accompanied with petitioner No.2 for service of the notice. The petitioners reached to the respondent/complainant's house to serve the notice. On ringing the bell, wife of the complainant opened the door and informed that her husband is inside the house and asked the petitioners to come inside the house. After some time she informed that that he is not present in the house and has gone to the market. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 2 called the respondent/complainant.on- his Mobile No. 9406600519, but he did not receive the call. Then petitioner No. 1 called the respondent/complainant, he received the call, the petitioner No.2 . informed. about the notice but the respondent refused to accept the notice. Even he threatened the petitioners that now never come to his residence and his house is equipped with CCTV cameras. The petitioners even tried to serve the notice to the family members but in vain they also denied the acceptance of notice. The petitioners, thereafter, came back to the Police station Azad Nagar, Indore and informed the whole incident to their superior and Rojnamcha No. 47/17 was recorded by the petitioners. After completing all formalities in Azad Nagar Police Station, Petitioner No.2 came back to the Police station - Bercha and informed about the whole incident to his superior and Rojynamcha was recorded by him. The respondent/complainant on the basis of false and fabricated facts on very next date submitted a complaint against the petitioners, thereby leveled false and fabricated allegations against the petitioners. Even thereafter wrote multiple letters to the superior officers of the police department to lodge complaint against the petitioners.

3. The department conducted enquiry in the matter and did not find any case of complaint against the ' petitioners. Thereafter, the