IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9569 of 2006 MURSHID ALAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 5. 30.7.2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner who happens to be the deed writer/scribe is aggrieved by order dated 3.12.2004 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in Complaint Case No.1391 of 2003 whereby cognizance for offences under Sections 419, 420 and 467 I.P.C. had been taken against accused nos.3 to 8, as named in the complaint petition including this petitioner. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that from the recital of the complaint petition as also the impugned order, it is not clear as to what overt act had been committed by the petitioner herein so as to take cognizance as against him. It has also been submitted that being a professional deed writer/scribe he is not required to know each and every person individually and when parties come to him they are introduced to him through Advocat’s Clerk. I have perused the impugned order as also the recital of the complaint petition and from perusal thereof it appears that the prosecution of the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. In the result, the cognizance taken only against this petitioner is hereby quashed and the application is allowed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)