Criminal Miscellaneous No.6959 of 2008 *** In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. *** APURVA MUKHARJEE, son of Late Kartik Chandra Mukherjee, Former Assistant Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Patna Main Branch, Hotel Maurya Premises, Fraser Road, Gandhi Maidan, in the town and district of Patna, at present posted as Senior Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Regional Office, Park Street, Kolkata. …. Accused/Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Krishan Mohan Prasad, Son of Late R. N. Prasad, Mohalla- Kazipur Quarter, Road No. 3, Police Station- Kadamkuan in the Town and District of Patna. …Complainant/Opposite Party *** For the petitioner: M/s U. P. Chainpuri, Saroj Kumar Singh & Sanjeev Kumar, Advocates For State : Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, APP For O. P. No.2 : Mr. Krishna Mohan Prasad, Advocate (In person) *** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH *** Anjana Prakash, J. The petitioner seeks quashing of the entire proceeding including the order dated 5.4.2006 by which the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Patna, has taken cognizance in Complaint Case No. 2304© of 2005 under sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the complainant is that he was an empanelled lawyer of Indian Overseas Bank and despite his good work of having recovered bad loans on behalf of the Bank the cases were being withdrawn from him due to which he was mentally tortured. He further alleged that on 29.3.2005, the petitioner called him, abused him and even lifted his hand to assault him. The complainant alleged that he was mentally tortured on account of this and also because his name was delisted from the panel of the lawyers representing the bank. - 2 - 3. The matter was heard in admission on 9.4.2009 and the opposite party no.2 was noticed upon which opposite party no.2 entered appearance. 4. It has been submitted that the petitioner was a former Assistant Manager of Indian Overseas Bank, Patna Main Branch and, in fact, the entire case is abuse of the process of the court since the opposite party no.2 is in the habit of filing such cases out of malice because he had been delisted from the panel of lawyers representing the bank. Further submission is that the opposite party no.2 had filed a similar complaint against other bank officials which is numbered as Complaint Case no.2529 of 2005 with almost similar allegations. 5. The opposite party no.2 has appeared and opposed the application and states that in fact excesses were committed on him by the bank official and, therefore, he was compelled to file the complaint and it is a fit case for prosecution. Further submission is that at the stage of cognizance this court should refrain from entering into the merits of the case since it is a matter of trial. 6. On going through the complaint, I find that the complaint is totally vague and sweeping in nature and there is an element of malice in the same since it appears to have been filed after notice to the opposite party no.2 that he had been delisted from the panel of lawyers. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that while exercising its power under section 482 Cr. P. C. the court is required to be circumspect but should not withhold itself from ensuring justice to the parties since the entire object of having a hierarchy of courts is to ensure justice. 7. In view of such, in exercise of my power under section 482 Cr. P. C., I hold that the complaint is totally malicious and is an abuse of the process of the court and is fit to be quashed. - 3 - 8. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order dated 05.04.2006 by which the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Patna, has taken cognizance in Complaint Case No. 2304© of 2005 is hereby quashed. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated the 6th July, 2010. NAFR / JA/-