ORDER
Amareshwar Sahay, J.
1. Heard the parties. The prayer of the petitioners in this application is to quash the order taking cognizance dated 26.8.2003 whereby the learned Court below has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 341/294A/467/468, IPC against the petitioners in C/1, Case No. 541 of 2003.
2. The opposite party No. 2 (complainant) lodged a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, alleging therein that he is an Advocate and prior to his joining practice in the District Court, he was an agent of Welfare Economy Company of accused Nos. 1 and 2 (petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 herein), who were Managing Director and Director of the said company. Subsequently, accused Nos. 1 & 2 closed the said company and then formed a new company in the name & style of TRADE WELL FINANCE LTD.’ The complainant became the Development Officer and then as Chief Development Officer in the new company. It was alleged that in course of business, the complainant collected recurring deposits, daily deposits, and fixed deposits, from the customers for which the company used to pay commission to its officers/agents every months and out of the commission 10% was being deducted as security money and accordingly the total security money of Rs. 69,100/was deposited by the complainant up to the year, 1999. It was further alleged that the complainant had already deposited a sum of Rs. 29,000/- as security money in addition to the amount of Rs. 69,100/-. When the complainant approached accused Nos. 1 & 2 for the aforesaid amount, it was told to him by the accused persons that the security money so deposited with the company has been converted into company shares and that the total amount of Rs. 26,100/- would be paid with interest. It was further alleged that subsequently the accused person took signature of the complainant on a blank paper on the plea that those papers were required for payment of the aforesaid amount. It was further alleged that in spite of several requests and demand by the complainant, no payment was made to the complainant. On 27.5.2003, it is said that while the complainant was on the way to his residence, all the accused persons, named in the complaint, with two ¦ unknown persons suddenly restrained and abused him by using filthy languages saying that KATUA KO MARO, SALA PAKISTANI, BHARAT MEI INN PAKISTANIYON KO RAHANE KA KOI ADHIKAR NAHI HAI. They further said that YE HARAMJADA GHULAM SARWAR MUSALMAN HAI AUR MUSALMAN KA KOI DHARM NAHI HOTA HAI. YEH GHULAM SARWAR JUGSALAI KO PURA PAKISTAN BANA DIYA HAI. He was also assaulted by the accused persons. The complainant went to lodge the FIR but the police did not register the case of the complainant then he filed complaint petition.
3. The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and two witnesses were examined during enquiry under Section 202 Cr PC and thereafter by the impugned order dated 26.8.2003, the Court below took cognizance of the offences alleged.
4. The case of the petitioners is that the complaint was lodged with oblique motive because of the fact when the complainant was working with Trade Well Finance Ltd., he stood as guarantor for several persons who had taken loan from the company M/s. Trade Well Finance Ltd. and as per the terms and conditions of the loan, if the loanee failed to deposit the monthly installment in the company against the loan amount, then liability was of the guarantor of a person, who recommended the case for grant of loan. As per the recommendation of the complainant, loans were disbursed to several persons, for which the complainant stood guarantor. It is said that several loanees for whom the complainant was guarantor failed to make payment to the company then the petitioners wrote a letter to the complainant on behalf of the company clearly stating that since the petitioners stood as guarantors and, therefore, if the loan amount is not paid back by the loanees then legal action would be taken against him.
5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that only in order to save his own skin, with mala fide intention the present complaint has been lodged by the complainant by fabricating a false case. In fact no such occurrence took place as alleged in the complainant petition.
6. It is further submitted that even if the allegations made in the complaint petition is accepted in its entirety, no offence what so ever is made out for which the cognizance has been taken by the Court below.
7. I have perused the allegations made in the complaint petition and find that the main allegation has been made in paragraph 9 wherein it is alleged that on 27.5.2003 the complainant was allegedly restrained by the accused persons while the complainant was going back to his residence and then he was abused in the language quoted in earlier paragraph and was also assaulted.
8. The complainant in his statement on solemn affirmation has not fully corroborated the allegation made in the complaint petition but in a very vague manner has stated that while he was going back from Court he was stopped on the way by the accused persons and he was abused by taking name of his religion. It further appears that in the complaint petition the witnesses, who were examined during inquiry under Section 202, Cr PC figured as eye-witnesses to the occurrence but as it appears from their statements made during inquiry that they have not corroborated the statement of the complainant and also the allegation made in the complaint petition but they have given their own story, which is not consistent with the allegation made in the complaint petition or the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation.
9. If further appears that the facts which have been alleged by the petitioners against the complainant in this petition has not been controverted by the complainant by filing any counter affidavit.
10. From the fact alleged in the complaint as well as from the statement of the witnesses, who were examined during inquiry under Section 202, Cr PC, I find that no offence as alleged and the offences under which the cognizance has been taken is made out.
11. Accordingly this application is allowed and the impugned order taking cognizance dated 26.8.2003 and the entire criminal proceedings being C/1 Case No. 541 of 2003 are hereby quashed.