IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53214 of 2007 KEWAL CHAND BHURAT, SON OF LATE GIRDHARI MAL BHURAT, PROPRIETOR BHURAT @ BHARAT FINANCE AND LEASING COMPANY, 140, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, P.S. JORASANKO, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL. ------- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. JAGARNATH YADAV, SON OF BHOLA PRASAD YADAV, RESIDENT OF BHIRAKHI, WARD NO. 12, MADHEPURA, P.S. MADHEPURA, DISTT. MADHEPURA. --------- OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 4. 23/04/2010 Heard. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 18.1.2002 by which Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhepura, in Complaint Case No. 894C of 2000 has taken cognizance under Sections 420, 406, 323, 384 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also quashing of the revisional order dated 10.9.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Madhepura, in Criminal Revisional No. 78 of 2007. The Complainant’s case is that he entered into an agreement for sale of a truck with accused No. 1 who handed over the truck to the Complainant but failed to furnish him the paper with regard to the same. When he went to demand the same, he was pushed out by the two accused persons mentioned in the complaint case. After enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P.C., the court took cognizance as mentioned above. The opposite party No. 2 was noticed by an order dated 11.2.2009 which was received by the son of the opposite party No. 2 and the petitioner was required to file an affidavit regarding jointness of the opposite party No. 2 with his son. The same has been done. - 2 - The simple submission of the petitioner is that he has not even being named in the complaint by name but only by his designation and there is absolutely no whisper of any transaction having been contracted by the Complainant and the present petitioner. In fact, even when the Complainant has mentioned about being pushed out by the two accused persons, he does not name the present petitioner. The submission is that he has been implicated only because he happens to be the owner of the Finance Company mentioned as accused No. 2 in the complaint petition. Having regard to the above submissions and on perusing the complaint petition, I find that there being no specific averment with regard to the petitioner and there being no scope for a vicarious liability in such a case, no offence is made out against the present petitioner and continuance of the proceedings will be a gross abuse of the process of the court. In the result, this application is allowed and the order taking cognizance dated 18.1.2002 passed by Shri R. Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhepura, in complaint case No. 894C of 2009 as well as the revisional order dated 10.9.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Madhepura, in Criminal Revision No. 78 of 2007 are set aside. S.Ali (Anjana Prakash, J.)