IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24961 of 2008 RAMESH JAISWAL @ R.JAISWAL, SON OF ARJUN PRASAD CHAUDHARY, R/O VILLAGE MAHANAR, P.S. MAHANAR, DISTT. VAISHALI AT PRESENT POSTED IN STATE BANK OF INDIA, BRANCH I.G.I.M.S., BAILEY ROAD, PATNA AS A MANAGR BANKING OPERATION --------- PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. NAYAK BASANT PASWAN SON OF LATE MAHABIR PASWAN R/O DEFENCE COLONY, FARIDANPUR, P.S. DANAPUR, DISTT. PATNA. ------ OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 3. 03.05.2011 Heard the parties. The petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 27.7.2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, Patna, by which it has taken cognizance under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 766(c) of 2006. The case of the Complainant is that he along with his wife is the account holder of the State Bank of India, Danapur, and on 14.1.2004 when he went to the Bank to make Complaints about certain irregularities in his account, he was slapped and abused and threatened with prospects of institution of false case against him. This complaint was instituted on 31.8.2006 i.e. after more than two years of the occurrence. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner who is the Branch Manager of State Bank of India that the Complainant and his wife have an account with their Branch in which four demand drafts were deposited totaling to the tune of Rs. 2 39,80,000/- which was suspected to be forged. For this reason, Danapur P.S. Case No. 09 of 2004 was instituted against them on 3.1.2004. It is on account of the institution of a case against the Complainant and his wife that the present complaint has been instituted belatedly as a backlash and to harass the petitioner who acted in discharge of his official duties. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 submits that the present complaint was instituted after the Complainant was released from jail and now he has been acquitted of charges and, therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner is completely valid. On going through the records of the case, I am of the opinion that undoubtedly, the Complainant has filed this malicious complaint on account of the action taken by the bank authorities. In the result, the application is allowed and the order of cognizance dated 27.7.2007 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 766(c) of 2006 is quashed. S.Ali ( Anjana Prakash, J. )