IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.50629 of 2007 G.N.ROY @ Girja Nand Roy, S/o Navin Chandra Roy, Manager, Central Bank, Mahuar, P.S. Manihari, Dist. Katihar. A/p Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Hanuman Nagar, Resident of Mohalla Asha Kunj Apartment, Flat No. 406, Ashok Nagar, Kankarbag, Dist. Patna. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. State of Bihar. 2. Sanjay Kumar Mandal, S/o Late Prayag Chand Mandal, Resident of village Deva Lakshmipur, P.S. Amadabad, Dist. Katihar. -------- Opp. Parties ----------- 3 30.03.2010 Heard Mr. Suraj Narain Prasad Sinha, learned senior counsel along with Mrs. Mira Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned counsel for the State. Despite service of notice on the opposite party no.2 and a Vakalatnama filed through Mr. Bhola Prasad, no one has appeared on his behalf. The long and short of this case is that the complainant opposite party no. 2 was a loanee which has also been admitted by him in paragraph no.10 of his complaint petition and the petitioner was the Manager of that bank from which such loan was given to the complainant opposite party no.2. It is also an admitted fact that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was still required to be recovered towards the said loan from the opposite party no.2 and 2 therefore, when the petitioner is sought to have visited the house of the loanee- complainant-opposite party no.2, his attempt to search and look for the motorcycle in question for which the loan was advanced and for which the amount was still to be paid, will definitely form part of exercise of official duty of a bank officer, the petitioner. Thus subsequent allegation that in course of search of the motorcycle the petitioner, a bank Manager, went inside the house and wanted to misbehave with the wife of the opposite party no.2 is inherently improbable in the backdrop that the opposite party no.2 was a loanee and was trying to avoid to make payment and therefore, when steps were taken for realization of the loan, he has come out with a concocted story in the complaint with vengeance in order to humiliate and scandalise the bank officer. Such facts will bring the complaint case to the category of an inherently improbable as laid down by the Apex Court in the court of R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1960 S.C. 866 3 and therefore, this Court exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. would quash the entire pending criminal proceeding including impugned order taking cognizance inasmuch as continuance of such malicious prosecution would amount to gross abuse of the process of Court. In the result this application is allowed and the impugned order taking cognizance is quashed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)