Criminal Miscellaneous No.5688 of 2004 *** In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure *** BAIDYANATH RAUT, son of Late Mishri Lal Raut, Resident of village + P.O. – Dullipati, P. S.- Jainagar, District- Madhubani ...Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Md. Aquil, son of Md. Amin, resident of Mohalla- Maharajganj, P.S. Laheria Sarai, District- Darbhanga. … Opposite Parties *** For the petitioner : Mr. Ashuthosh Ranjan Pandey, Dr. Anshuman, Advocates For the State : Mr. Choubey Jawahar, APP *** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH *** Anjana Prakash, J. The petitioner seeks quashing of the entire proceeding including the order dated 14.8.2001 and 19.1.2004 passed in Complaint case No. 435 of 2001 (Trial No.546 of 2004) by which the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Darbhanga, has taken cognizance under section 500 Indian Penal Code and refused to discharge the petitioner on the ground of limitation. 2. On 15.9.2004, notices were issued to the opposite party no.2 and further proceedings were stayed in the matter and thereafter on 5.12.2005, it was noted that despite service of notices the opposite party no.2 had chosen not to appear and, therefore, the application was admitted for hearing. Today also I find that none appears for the opposite party no.2. 2 3. It has been submitted that the petitioner was posted as Branch Manager of SBI, Lakhisarai, in June, 1993, and remained there till August, 1995. On 10.02.1995, the petitioner received a letter from the Zonal Office situated at Muzaffarpur, directing him to institute a First Information Report against the opposite party no.2. for having committed certain fraud upon the Bank. On such direction, the First Information Report was instituted as per the draft which was numbered as Laherisarai P.S. Case No. 47 of 1995 for the offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 Indian Penal Code on 16.12.1995. Subsequently, the trial commenced but in the meanwhile the petitioner was transferred from there and took no part in the trial. Later, the bank for some reason chose to withdraw the prosecution upon which the trial court acquitted the opposite party no.2 by order dated 26.8.2000 for reasons of no evidence. The opposite party no.2 thereafter filed an application before the trial court with a prayer that he be compensated as provided under section 358 Cr.P.C., but by order 7.2.2001, the court considering that the prosecution was not malicious refused to grant the same. The complainant then took recourse to the Consumer Forum where also now the application has been dismissed. In the meanwhile, on 28.5.2001, after acquittal of the opposite party no.2, in the trial on the ground of insufficiency of evidence, he instituted the present complaint alleging that he had been defamed since there was newspaper report that a criminal case has been instituted against him and that complaint had also been instituted against him without any basis. 4. From the narrative of the complaint petition, it is difficult to deduce that it was the petitioner’s act which had, if at all, defamed the opposite party no.2 and, therefore, in my opinion no offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioner. 3 5. In view of such, this application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the orders dated 14.8.2001 and 19.1.2004 passed in Complaint case No. 435 of 2001 (Trial No.546 of 2004) by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Darbhanga, are quashed. 6. Application stands allowed. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 12th July, 2010 NAFR /JA/-