IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.47510 of 2007 BARNA CHAKRABORTY wife of Jayatu Chaudhary Resident of village-320 New Shiv Tola, Bansdhaoni, P.S.-Kolkata, Dist.-Kolkata (W.B.) recently posted as P.N.B. Garia Branch, Kolkata (W.B.) ……. …….Petitioner Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Bechu Das son of late Permanand Das, Resident of Mohalla-Bania Tola, P.S.- Katihar, Dist.-Katihar …… …….Opp.Parties. --------- 4. 27.9.2010. The sole petitioner, who was an employee of Punjab National Bank, Katihar Branch and also a Member of Punjab National Bank Karamchari Bachat evam Swablambi Sahkari Samittee Ltd., Katihar registered under the Bihar Self Supporting Society Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “Samitee”). In the said Samittee, it was alleged by the complainant that he had deposited a total amount of Rs.23,400/-. However, on maturity the amount was not refunded. It was noticed that Smittee’s office was subsequently closed. Accordingly, the complainant while filing Complaint Case No. 445 of 2005 alleged that the accused persons had committed offences under Sections 409, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. After filing the complaint, an enquiry was conducted and by order dated 2.6.2006, the learned Magistrate Ist Class, Katihar took cognizance of offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and, thereafter, the present petition was filed on 8.10.2007. It has been submitted by Mr. Bhola Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the complainant was that he had deposited the amount in between 11.2.2004 to 21.7.2004. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to annexure-2 to the petition submits that the petitioner was already transferred in the year 2001 and thereafter she tendered resignation from the Samittee which was accepted on 7.8.2001. Since the petitioner was already transferred from Katihar to Calcutta, there was no question for involvement of the petitioner in the present case. It has been submitted that it appears that the petitioner has been made accused by the complainant due to the reason that earlier the petitioner was Member of the Samittee. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the entire complaint petition even there is no whisper against the petitioner indicating commission of any offence by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset submits that after the order of cognizance, no progress has taken place in the present case till date. In this case earlier notice was issued to opposite party no.2 and despite valid service of notice, opposite party no.2 had not chosen to appear in the present case. I have heard Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State. Besides hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, I have also perused the materials available on the record. Of course, while hearing a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court should refrain from looking into the document annexed with the petition but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that for just decision in the matter it would be appropriate to even see those 3 documents. In the complaint petition also, there is no assertion or any whisper against the petitioner regarding commission of any offence. Entire allegation was made against accused nos. 1, 2 and 3. Keeping in view the averments made in the complaint petition as well as the stands taken by learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that allowing the proceeding in the present case will amount to allow the abuse of the process of the court and for the ends of justice it is necessary to interfere with the matter. Accordingly, I am of the view that it is a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner and, as such, the order of cognizance dated 2.6.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 445 of 2005 by Sri R. Malviya, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Katihar so far as the petitioner is concerned, is hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)