IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.27265 of 1999 SHRI CHINMAY MITRA & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 8/ 16.8.2010 None appears on behalf of the petitioners. However, Shri Ashok Priyadarshi, learned counsel appears on behalf of O.P. No. 2. The petition seeks quashing of order dated 19.4.1999 which was passed in Complaint Case No. 1299 C of 1998. The order itself contains the précis of the facts alleged and further indicates that the petitioners were summoned for committing offences under sections 161, 418 and 120B of the IPC. As may appear from the Indian Penal Code, section 161 was repealed from the Code and as regards sections 418 and 120B, the court has very clear opinion about it that the element of deception may be there but, on that account the complainant was induced to deliver any property to any person with some fraudulent or dishonest intention, there could be grave doubt about it. If the petitioner could be conspiring amongst themselves, that conspiracy appears to the court for committing an offence of mischief as the telephone of the complainant was never shifted or not shifted in time even after due formalities in that behalf were fulfilled. But, considering that it is a long time since the order of cognizance was passed, it would not be proper that the petitioners should be put to trial for such acts which could be trivial in nature and, fundamentally, which could give appropriate cause of action for 2 filing an appropriate complaint before the Consumer Forum. Considering that, proceeding of the above noted case is quashed in belief that if the complainant approaches the Consumer Forum, he shall have his cause adjudicated and further in belief that the officers of the concerned department take a lesson that consumers could not be hoodwinked and they could not refuse to take notice of their complaint. The petition stands allowed. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)