Criminal Miscellaneous No.14571 of 2004 *** In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure *** 1. Ram Swarup Raut, son of Late Damodar Raut, resident of village & P.O.- Chhatiyara, P.S. Kandail, District-Sheikhpura, presently residing at Flat No.202, Hope Chandra apartment, Nehru Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Patliputra, District- Patna 2. Shambhu Patel @ Shambu Saran Patel, son of Sri Ram Swarup Raut, resident of Flat No.202, Hope Chandra Apartment, Nehru Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Patliputra, District- Patna 3. Santosh Patel, son of Sri Ram Swarup Raut, resident of Flat No.202, Hope Chandra Apartment, Nehru Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Patliputra, District- Patna ...Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR & 2. Raju Ranjan Kumar Singh, son of Sri Manager Singh, resident of Kabirpur, P.S. Manjhi, District- Saran … Opposite Parties *** For the petitioner : Mr. Vivek Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. B. N. Pandey, A.P.P. For the O. P. No.2 : None *** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH *** Anjana Prakash, J. The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 23.3.2004 passed in Complaint Case No.134 of 2004 by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Saran, Chapra, by which he has taken cognizance for the offence under sections 323/34 and 506/34 Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. 2. The case of the complainant is that on 11.4.2002, the petitioners had sought loan for the marriage of daughter of petitioner no.1 and thereafter when the complainant asked for return of the same they snatched the documents from him on the point of dagger and got some documents created by force and also caused injuries to them. 3. By order dated 21.9.2005, notices were issued to the opposite party no.2, despite which the opposite party no.2 did not appear and thereafter finally appeared as is evident from office note dated 09.01.2006. The matter was heard on 16.01.2006, on which date this application was admitted for hearing. 4. Today, the opposite party no.2 has chosen not to appear before this court. The simple argument of the petitioners is that in fact the complaint is totally malicious since there was no question of any loan having been taken since the daughter of petitioner no.1 was married even before the date concerned. Moreover, even though there is allegation that the petitioners had got a document of the complainant executed but the same does not appear to have been used anywhere and, therefore, that part of the allegation also appears to be superfluous. 5. From the perusal of the complaint it appears that there is just an oral allegation that the petitioner assaulted without any specifics. In my opinion, the complaint being totally vague and general in nature arising purely out of an oral transaction between the parties appears to be an abuse of the process of the court and is fit to be set aside. 6. In view of such, this application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order dated 23.03.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Chapra, in Complaint Case no.134 of 2004 is hereby quashed. 7. Application stands allowed. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 8th July, 2010 NAFR/ JA/-