IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.868 of 2008 DR. OM PRAKASH CHOUDHARY @ OM PRAKASH CHOUDHARY Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 4. 3.3.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. No one appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2 despite valid service of notice. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of cognizance dated 13.6.2007 in Complaint Case No. 3804(C) of 2006 by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class Patna under Section 420 of the I.P.C. The complaint describes the petitioner in official capacity as the Superintendent of the Patna Medical College Hospital. The allegation is that the Superintendent with the help of his junior administrator and some doctors created nuisance with the attendants of the patients during treatment in the hospital. An advertisement was issued for employment of retired persons from the Military for purposes of security in the hospital premises. One H.P.Singh, A.S.O. of Dagar Sainik Security Agency was granted the responsibility. The agent of the security agency tried to enforce discipline in the hospital premises. Some hospital staff disgruntled reported to the Superintendent that the security agency was not doing their work properly. The petitioner as the Superintendent along with others conspired to annul the security agency contract. The hospital staff, storekeeper and watchman conspired with the enemies of the hospital. - 2 - That the security arrangement of the hospital was hopeless. That the Chief Minister and the Health Minister were informed that the military personnel have always protected the country. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that he is the superintendent of the hospital. The security agency M/s Dagar Sainik Security Agency were deployed on a contract basis in the hospital premises. The complainant was one of its employees. The contract of the agency was about to expire and the hospital administration had decided not to extend the duration of the contract. The complaint has been filed on 29.12.2006 without giving any specific date of occurrence in the recitals, the petitioner has been appointed as an acting Superintendent on 30.4.2007. The complainant is an employee of the said security agency. He was asked not to discharge duties from 11.3.2007. The submission, therefore, is that the filing of the complaint case was an abuse of the process of law, to wreak vengeance from the hospital in not renewing the contract, under threat of criminal litigation. Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code on the face of the allegations had no application as there are no allegations of any fraud practice by the hospital inducing the security agency to part with any property or security which it would not have otherwise parted with, but for such fraud or deception no wrongful gain or wrong loss has occurred. Quite obviously the opposite party no. 2 appears to have lost interest in the - 3 - matter since by filing of the complaint case it failed to compel the hospital to renew the security agency contract. The entire proceedings against the petitioner in Complaint Case No. 3804(C) of 2006 are hereby quashed. The application stands allowed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)