IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.35652 of 2007 1. MR. JEEVAN PRAKASH GUPTA, Dy. Director, Oriental Structural Engineers Private Limited, Padyapur Farm, Shahpur, Aurangabad, Bihar. 2. Mr. Ashwani Kumar Singh @ Ashwani Sinha, Son of Late Ram Krishna Lal, Store Manager, Oriental Structural Engineers Private Limited, Padyapur Farm, Shahpur, Aurangabad, Bihar 3. Vijay Koul, Son of Late Janki Nath Koul, Oriental Structural Engineers Private Limited, Padyapur Farm, Shahpur, Aurangabad, Bihar. . . . . Petitioners. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Jeev Nandan Dusadh, Son of Late Ram Narayan Dusadh, Resident of Village Raipur, P.S. Aurangabad, District- Aurangabad. . . . . . . Opp. Parties. ----------- 5/ 24.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State as well as opposite party no.2. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 03.12.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Aurangabad in Complaint Case no. 678(C) of 2005 whereby he has taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 341, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons to face trial. The opposite party no.2 filed a complaint stating therein that the accused persons were occupying his land bearing khata no. 133, plot no.1, since the year 2000 without paying any rent. When he went to ask for the rent, the petitioners abused him in derogatory language. The petitioners state that they are employees of Oriental Structural Engineers Private Limited, its head office at Delhi. The Company has expertise in construction work. In the year 2001 the company bagged the contract for the Four laning and strengthening of existing two lane sections between 140 Km. to 180 Km. and 180 Km. to 240 Km. on NH 2 under Golden Triangle Project. Counsel for the - 2 - petitioners submits that the company has completed the work and they merely executed the work on behalf of the company, as per agreement with the complainant. He submits that no case under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code would be made out, as there is no assertion that petitioners assaulted the complainant. He submits that the occurrence took place in the year 2001. He submits that no cognizance was taken under SC/ST Act. Counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that petitioners may take all these points at the subsequent stage in the case. After hearing the parties, this Court finds that the Managing Director or the owner of the Company has not been made accused. The petitioners did not act in their personal capacity. The company has completed the project also. It appears that petitioners are only aggrieved on account of non-enhancement of rent, for which there is civil remedy. Further more, only high officials of the Company, who could have enhanced the amount. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that the continuance of the case would be an abuse of the process of Court. It would be open to the opposite party no. 2 to file an appropriate case, if he finds that the rent has not been adequately paid. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)