CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18354 OF 2000 ------ In the matter of an application under section 482 of Code of Criminal procedure. ------ 1.AJAY KUMAR , Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Motipur Branch, P.S.-Motipur, District-Muzaffarpur. 2.Arun Kumar, Higher Grade Assistant, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Motipur, P.S.-Motipur, District-Muzaffarpur ……. ……Petitoners Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.Samseer Kumar Sinha son of late Haribansh Narayan Singh, Moh:Juran Chapra, P.S.-Brahampur, District- Muzaffarpur, at present residing at Motipur, P.S.-Motipur, district-Muzaffarpur ….. ……Opp. Parties ------ For the petitioners: M/s Umesh Prasad Singh, Sr.Adv. Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Adv. For the State: Mr. Hriday Prasad Singh, A.P.P. ------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ------ Rakesh Kumar,J. Two petitioners, who are Branch Manager and Higher Grade Assistant respectively of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Motipur, district Muzaffarpur, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 19.4.2000 passed by Sri S.P.Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No.166 of 2000 (Trial No.998/2000). By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. 2. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2, who was a Medical Officer, filed a complaint vide Complaint Case No.166 of 2000 in the court of Sub.Divisional 2 Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur (West) disclosing therein that on 30.9.1990 he was engaged by Life Insurance Corporation of India for examining the proposal form relating to proposed policy. It was disclosed that on the same day as per the special request made by the Development Officer the complainant examined about fifty proposals. It was alleged that he was not given required diary by the accused persons. As per agreement Rs.50/- was to be paid by the Life Insurance Corporation of India in respect of examination of each proposal. It was alleged that despite the fact that he examined fifty proposals, no payment was made and it was alleged that these petitioners did not give required cheque and diary. On the aforesaid fact a complaint petition was filed and after examination of the complainant on solemn affirmation the learned Magistrate by its order dated 19.4.2000 took cognizance of the offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Mr.Umesh Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that from perusal of the complaint petition no offence is made out. It was submitted that petitioner no.1 was Branch Manager and petitioner no.2 was Higher Grade Assistant in the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Motipur Branch, Muzaffarpur.It was argued that if for the time being it is assumed that for the work which was done by the complainant he was not paid, on this score alone, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted. It was submitted that if there was due, the complainant was entitled to 3 Patna High Court The 19th July,2010. Md.S./NAFR take other recourse against the Insurance Company. On this ground he was not authorized to file a complaint and in absence of any commission of offence, the learned Magistrate was not required to proceed with the complaint petition. Accordingly, it was submitted that the order of cognizance is liable to be set aside. 4. In this case despite the fact that opposite party no.2 had entered his appearance through his counsel, at the time of hearing of the present petition, none has come forward to appear on his behalf. 5. Mr. Hriday Prasad Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on the record. On perusal of the complaint petition, this court is satisfied that no offence is made out. The learned Magistrate in a mechanical manner has passed the order of cognizance. 7. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 19.4.2000 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No.166 of 2000 (Trial no.998 of 2000) is hereby quashed and the petition stands allowed. (Rakesh Kumar,J.) 4