IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42376 of 2005 DHIRENDRA KUMAR JHA . Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR . 8 19.3.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 7.6.2005 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge II, Sitamarhi in Cr.Revision No.173 of 2004/3 of 2005 whereby he declined to interfere with the order dated 1.12.2003 by which the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Pupari, Sitamarhi took cognizance of offence under sections 197, 198, 200, 323, 354, 384, 466, 468, 471 of the Penal Code and section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. The complainant Mostt. Fulo Devi alleged that accused persons in conspiracy with each other withdrew a sum of Rs.25,000/- as loan from Punjab National Bank, Banaul in the name of her son Binod Ram by affixing the photograph of the witness Rohit Ram on the application form which was in the name of her son. It is further alleged that the complainant asked the accused persons to undo the wrong and in that process when she went to the office of the Punjab National Bank to enquire about the progress, she learnt that the accused persons had gone to the office of the B.D.O. Thereafter, the complainant went to the office of the B.D.O. and repeated her demand to undo the wrong which has been committed by the accused persons in conspiracy with each other. Thereupon it is alleged that the petitioner also abuses her and with the help of other accused persons also tore off her cloths and obtained L.T.I. on several plain papers. 2 KHAN Counsel for the petitioner submits that the process of withdrawal of amount from the Punjab National Bank was started in the year 1997 whereas the petitioner joined as B.D.O. in the year 2000. Thus, the petitioner has no concern with the withdrawal of the amount from the Punjab National Bank. He further submits that it would appear from the complaint itself that the complainant herself came to the office of the petitioner looking for other accused persons and thereafter it is alleged that this petitioner along with other accused persons abused her and tore off her cloth. It appears that this court by order dated 8.8.2007 passed in Cr.Misc.No.27358 of 2004 has quashed the impugned order taking cognizance against one of the accused of the instant case. Despite notice no one appears on behalf of Opposite party no.2. It would appear from the prosecution case that the complainant herself had gone to the office of the petitioner looking for other accused persons and thereafter it is alleged that the petitioner along with other accused persons abused her and tore off her cloth. The allegation of tearing of cloth of a woman in the official chamber in presence of others seems improbable and is absurd. In backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, continuance of prosecution against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of court and as such the criminal prosecution against him is quashed. In the result, this application is allowed. (S.P.Singh,J)