IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25491 of 2001 MADAN LAL GOENKA Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5/ 18.8.2010 None appears for the petitioner. Perused the complaint petition and the impugned order. The complaint petition is in printed form with vacant spaces left for filling in different details. The commission of the offences under which the complaint could be lodged are also already printed and what the complainant has done is that she has simply tick marked as to what offences have been made out. I have perused the relevant provision of Minimum Wages Act and find that there is no statement made in the printed complaint petition which could place facts constituting those offences under which the complaint petition was filed before the C.J.M., Bettiah vide Complaint Case no. 46 OC of 2001. The most unfortunate aspect of initiating the prosecution was that the learned C.J.M. who was passing the cognizance and summoning order on 1.6.2001 was also sailing in the same boat. He was not indicating as to what were the facts which constituted a particular offence of which he took cognizance and further as to what offences were actually shown committed by the accused persons by virtue of perusing the complaint petition. The order of summoning appears passed mechanically without there being any material placed before the court in that behalf. Besides, it shows complete non application of 2 judicial mind. In the result, the whole prosecution arising out of the said complaint petition is quashed. The petition stands allowed. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)