IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29389 of 2006 ABHIT SUD son of Shri Ajit Kumar Sud, resident of 12,Yamuna Marg, Civil lines. Delhi-54 …… …..Petitioner Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Sudhir Kant Jha, father’s name not known, resident of Road No.3, Budha Nagar, South chandmari Road, P.S.-Kankarbagh, Patna-20 …… ….Opposite party ----------- 12. 24.2.2010. Heard Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned APP for the State. Despite several orders passed by this court including issuance of notice, appearance of opposite party no.2 could not be secured. In its order dated 1.5.2008 this court had recorded the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that notices have been issued to the complainant on five occasions and all have returned unserved. The court recorded submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant was obviously ignoring the notice being served on him. Subsequently, on the basis of statement made in supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner and also after perusal of certified copy of order sheet from 21.9.2006 to 26.3.2008 relating to Complaint Case No.1046( c) of 2006 in its order dated 21.5.2008 this court noticed that after 23.3.2007 none had appeared on behalf of the complainant in the complaint proceedings before the court below and thereafter this court directed the petitioner to file one set of petition to be forwarded to the learned trial court so that it may be served on the learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party 2 no.2. However, all efforts turned futile and till date none appeared to defend the case of opposite party no.2. In view of a peculiar fact, in this case no further notice is required to be issued and it may be disposed of at this stage itself since the present case before this court is pending from the month of July, 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while pressing the petition for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 2.6.2006 passed in Complaint Case No.1046 (C) of 2006 and also for quashing of the entire proceedings, submits that on bare perusal of the entire complaint petition one can come to the conclusion that the same was filed maliciously only with a view to harass the petitioner, who is a Director of Mayar India Limited dealing in business of medicine. I have perused the complaint petition wherein it has been indicated that while the complainant had visited the office of the petitioner at Delhi in respect of payment of his dues, the complainant was assaulted and the accused persons snatched golden chain, Titan wrist watch and Rs.3,000/- in cash from the complainant and threatened him of uneven consequences. The complainant alleged in its petition that certain amount was lying with this petitioner, who was made accused. On the basis of materials available on the record, Mr.Shobha Kant Mishra, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna by order dated 2.6.2006 took cognizance of the offence under sections 323, 379 and 418 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered for issuance of summons. The said order is under challenge in this proceeding. 3 The court is conscious regarding its limited jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, if the proceeding before the court below is allowed to continue certainly, in the eye of law, it will be a case of allowing the abuse of process of the court. The reason for interference at this initial stage is firstly that in the complaint petition the complainant admits, whether it is correct or not, that he was assaulted and his some articles were snatched by the petitioner while he had visited the office of the petitioner at Delhi and, as such, the learned court at Patna was having no jurisdiction to take cognizance and try the case for a cause which had entirely occurred beyond his territorial jurisdiction. Secondly, the fact that even after order of cognizance i.e.2.6.2006 for sometimes Pairvi was made on behalf of the complainant before the court below and that was done upto 23.3.2007 and subsequent to that there was no Pairvi. Thereafter, none had appeared on behalf of the complainant before the court to pursue the matter. Similarly, after issuance of notice by this court and repeated orders and steps taken in this proceeding none had appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 before this court. From the facts and circumstance it appears that complaint petition has only been initiated with malicious reason that too with a view to harass the petitioner, who was none else but the employer of the complainant at the relevant time. In view of the facts and circumstances indicated hereinabove, it is desirable that the order of cognizance and the 4 entire proceedings in Complaint Case No.1046(c) of 2006 pending in the court of Sri Shobha Kant Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, Ist class, Patna, be set aside and, accordingly, it is set aside. This petition is allowed. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)