IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43646 of 2007 LALTI DEVI Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the Petitioner: M/s Abhay Shanker Singh & S.Deokuliar Advocates For the State : Mr Rajendra Nath Jha, APP ------ 3. 09.01.2009 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 despite having entered appearance after notice. The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 403 of 2005 under Sections 406, 420 and 467 of the Penal Code pending before the Court of SDJM Raxaul at Motihari and the order dated 31.5.2006 by which cognizance has been taken and summons issued. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that on reading the complaint as it is, the petitioner allegedly promised employment on consideration in a private charitable organization. The appointment was granted. The son of the complainant joined on 1.10.2004 and worked till 30.9.2005. He was not paid his wages. The office of the charitable organization in the town of Motihari could not be traced when the son of the complainant was working at Bhelahi Health Centre of the charitable organization. The complaint concludes for a claim for wages to now assert that the appointment was bogus. The submission is that according to the complaint itself the son of the complainant had a job for 12 months. If wages were not paid by his employer the petitioner is not the employer and is not answerable for the same. The issuance of summon was a serious matter. Learned Counsel for the State opposing the application submitted that since summons had been issued the petitioner could appear before the court below and show cause. The law stands settled that issuance of summon is a serious matter. The Court is not expected to act mechanically by entertaining the complaint, record the statement of witnesses and proceeding to take cognizance and issue summons. The Court has to be satisfied of the offence being made out. Once summons are issued even after the petitioner appears there is little that can be done in the matter except either acquittal or conviction after conclusion of the trial. This aspect of the matter now stands settled by judicial pronouncements. Coming to the facts of the present case, the allegations clearly are of an appointment given, where the son of the complainant worked for 12 months and for which salary has not been paid by the employer. The petitioner is not the employer. Her promise was to secure employment. She secured the employment. She is not answerable thereafter. This Court therefore upholds the submission on behalf of the petitioner that on the face of the allegations no offence under Sections 406, 420 or 467 IPC is made out against the petitioner. The order dated 31.5.2006 and the entire proceedings in Complaint Case No. 403 of 2005 corresponding to Trial No. 2082 of 2006 is quashed in so far as the petitioner is concerned. The application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)