IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.22693 of 2007 ***** Raushan Bharti, S/o Sri Binod Prasad Agarwal, Balagee Textile Agency, 60-61 2nd Floor, Khetan Market, Birla Mandir Road, Patna. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Sanjay Paswan, S/o Balak Paswan, Vill:Mohathi Tola Chaurapar, P.S. Bibhutipur, Distt:Samastipur. …. …. Opposite parties ----------- 5. 19.5.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. There is no representation on behalf of opposite party no.2. Petitioner wants quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 22.5.2004 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera in Complaint Case No.219 of 2004, relating to Tr. No.888 of 2005 against the petitioner under Section 406 and 232 of the Indian Penal Code. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no ingredients of Section 420 and 406 as such is made out against the petitioner because the present case is a malicious prosecution and is arising out of alleged dispute over payment of salary and wages to the complainant. He further submits that even if the allegation made out in the complaint is read as a whole there is no element of criminality and if the complainant has any serious dispute with regard to the amount which this petitioner owes to him and what was due for the so-called work done by the complaint has many forums to approach under special statute created in this regard. With the sole object of harassing this petitioner this complaint case has come to be filed at Rosera when the petitioner’s shop - 2 - is located at Patna and where the complainant had worked. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be borne out from the allegation made in the complaint. The matter arises out of a dispute over payment of wages to be complainant which has been given a colour of a different kind to put pressure upon him. In view of the same, continuance of the criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of process of the Court. Petitioner has made out a case for interference. The order taking cognizance dated 22.5.2004 in Complaint Case No.219 of 2004, relating to Tr. No.888 of 2005 stands quashed. The application stands allowed. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)