IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25474 of 1999 MD. NASIMUDDIN S/O LATE MD.SHARFUDDIN, FIELD OFFICER, BIHAR RAJ SAHKARI BHUMI BIKAS BANK (BIHAR STATE CO-OPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK) BRANCH, ARARIA, DIST-ARARIA, R/O HOSPITAL ROAD, AZAD NAGAR, ARARIA, WARD NO.12, P.S. & DIST- ARARIA………………………………………………………………PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. SITESH KUMAR VERMA S/O LATE NARENDRA NATH DAS, R/O KHARAIYA BASTI, ARARIA, WARD NO.6 P.S.AND DIST- ARARIA……………………………………………….OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 5. 03-May-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the complainant, O.P. No.2. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order of cognizance dated 24.7.1999 passed in Complaint Case No. C-1040/1998 pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria deserves to be quashed on the simple ground that allegations in the complaint petition are false and only with a view to harass the petitioner who being a Field Officer of Bihar State Co- operative Land Development Bank, Branch, Araria, had the official responsibility to serve summons issued by the Certificate Officer in a proceeding against the complainant. 3. With a view to appreciate the aforesaid - 2 - submission the complaint petition contained in Annexure-1 has been perused with care. Such perusal does not disclose any good reason for disbelieving the allegations as false at this stage. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the complaint petition the complainant has claimed that he had paid an installment of money due on 17.6.1998 i.e. about one month prior to the occurrence but the records of the Certificate Case do not disclose such payment. This submission cannot help the petitioner because unless the complainant gets the chance to prove his allegation by producing the bank receipt and summoning the accounts of the bank, it is not possible to hold that the complainant has made false and incorrect allegations. The allegation of illegal demand of Rs.5000/- and that it was reduced on request and complainant was released from illegal custody of the petitioner after paying Rs.2000/- also cannot be disbelieved at this stage. 5. In view of the aforesaid discussions and entire facts and circumstances, this Court finds no good ground to interfere with the order of cognizance at this stage. This - 3 - quashing application is, therefore, dismissed. 6. This order shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner and he may take all lawful defence at appropriate stage. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.)