CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3331 OF 2001 --------- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------- 1.HARSH DEO TIWARY Assistnat General Manager, Region 1, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Frazer Road, Patna 2.Sadanand Mehta, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, New Market Branch, Patna-1 ……. ……..Petitioners Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Ram Lakhan Sao, son of late Sheo Shankar Sao, resident of Surhi Tola Lane Mahendru P.S.-Sultanganj, Patna-6. …… …….Opp.Parties. ------ For the petitioners: None For Opp.Party No.2: None For the State: Mrs. Indu Bala pandey, A.P.P. -------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR -------- Rakesh Kumar,J. When the case was called out, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners either to press this petition or make a prayer for adjournment. Though name of learned counsel for opposite party no.2 is appearing in the daily cause list, on behalf of opposite party no.2 also none turned up at the time of hearing. In absence of both the parties, I have heard Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. I have also perused the petition and entire materials available on the record. 2. It is a peculiar case in which opposite party no.2(landlord) after noticing the fact that his tenant (State Bank of India)) had tried to shift the branch of the bank from his premises, a complaint was filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, 2 Patna which was numbered as Complaint Case No.1875C of 2000. In sum and substance, the complainant had alleged that a lease agreement was entered in between the bank and the complainant. As per the agreement, in advance the tenant was required to intimate the landlord for vacating the premises. It was alleged that suddenly the complainant-landlord came to know that the State Bank of India had shifted its branch to a different premises from the premises of the complainant. Though from the assertion made in the complaint petition no offence was made out, with a view to attract the provision of section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure an assertion was made that Basin etc. were removed by the bank officials. After conducting enquiry, the learned Magistrate was also of the opinion that it was a civil dispute but she has passed the order of cognizance under section 427 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. On perusal of the entire materials, this court is satisfied that the complaint petition was filed maliciously. The petitioners were officers of the bank and the bank was tenant of the complainant. In view of the materials available on the record, this court is of the opinion that allowing prosecution on the complaint which was filed by opposite part no.2 will amount to allowing the abuse of the process of the court. 4. Accordingly, order of cognizance dated 6.1.2001 passed by Smt. Reeta Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No.1875C of 2000 as well as entire proceeding so far as petitioners are concerned, is hereby set aside and the 3 Patna High Court The 4th August,2010 Md.S./NAFR petition stands allowed. (Rakesh Kumar,J.)