JUDGMENT Ali Ahmad, J. The prayer made in this application is to quash the order, dated the 14th April, 1973, by which the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, took cognizance against the petitioners and transferred the case for disposal to the Court of Shri S. K. P. Verma. 2. To appreciate the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it will be necessary to mention the relevant facts, which are as follows. On the 10th of February, 1972, the complainant opposite party no. 2 went to Mohammadpur Kazi town police station, Muzaffarpur, at about 4 P. M. and gave a written report on the basis, of which station diary entry no. 103 was recorded. The substance of the written report was that opposite party no. 2 (Tula Kant Jha) was living in a house in Club road since about five years. He apprehended breach of peace at the hands of the petitioners and his lathials, as the petitioners wanted to oust him from the house. He also mentioned in the written report that his life and property was in danger at the hands of petitioners. The police, after recording the aforesaid station diary entry no. 103 at 4.05 P.M., went to the house at the club road and inquired into the matter. On the very next day i.e. 11.2.1972, the police submitted a report to the Sub-divisional Magistrate recommending action against both parties under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Notices were accordingly issued and the parties showed cause. The matter was taken up finally on the 12th of April, 1972, and on that day, the Sub-divisional Magistrate passed an order making the rule absolute against the opposite party and the rule against the petitioners was vacated. 3. It appears that opposite party no. 2 was not satisfied with the action taken by the police on the 10th February, 1972 and the report dated 11.2.1972. He, therefore, filed a petition of complaint before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, on the 12th of February, 1972, where in it was, inter alia, said that the complainant was a typist clerk in the Ram Dayalu Singh College and has been residing in Mohalla Club Road Mithanpura in Holding No. 146 (old) no 145/l0 (new). It was further stated that on the day of occurrence, i.e. the 10th of February, 1972, the complainant went to the college after taking his luncheon. It was further stated that on the day of occurrence, i.e. the 10th of February, 1972, the complainant went to the college after taking his luncheon. At about 2 P. M., while he was in the College, he came to know that the petitioners along with others armed with lathi, bhala and farsa, forcibly entered into his house after breaking open the lock and looted large number of articles. A list of articles so looted was also mentioned in the petition of complaint. 4. The Sub-divisional Magistrate after examining opposite party no. 2 on solemn affirmation referred the case to another Magistrate for enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate held an enquiry and submitted his report wherein he found a prima facie case against the petitioners. The report was taken up by Sub-divisional Magistrate on the 14th of April, 1973, when he took cognizance under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the complaint lodged on the 12th of February, 1972, amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court. He submitted that the complainant on the 10th of February, 1972, at 4 P. M. had personally given a written report to the police wherein he stated only about some apprehension of danger to his life and property at the hands of the petitioners. According, to the learned counsel for the petitioners, if the allegations made in the petition of complaint filed on the 12th February, 1972, were true then the written report given by opposite party no. 2 on the 10th of February, 1972, at 4 P.M. must have found mention about the incident. According to him, the complaint was maliciously false and was filed only with a view to harass the petitioners. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party, however, contends that the order taking cognizance does not suffer from any illegality and, therefore, it should not be quashed. He further submitted that the prosecution case may be a weak case and may not be proved at the trial, but mere weakness of the case cannot justify this Court to interfere with the order taking cognizance. He further submitted that the prosecution case may be a weak case and may not be proved at the trial, but mere weakness of the case cannot justify this Court to interfere with the order taking cognizance. By now, it is well settled that this Court will not exercise its powers under section 561 A and will remain a helpless spectator and allow the process of the court to be abused. The Supreme Court, in Rajednra Nath Mahato Vs. T. Gangooly, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Purulia and others A.I.R. 1972 SC. 470 had occasion to consider this aspect of the matter. Their Lordships, while considering this aspect of the matter, has said as follows :- “It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the High Court should not have gone to the question as to whether a prima facie case was established or not. The High Court under section 561 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure can go into the question as to whether there is any legal evidence. When the High Court said that the evidence in the present case came from tainted sources and was not reliable the High Court meant what can be described as 'no case to go to the jury'. The aforesaid passage quoted from A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 470 (ibid) supports the view that in suitable cases, the High Court can interfere and quash cognizance even on facts. 6. The facts in this case speak for themselves. The complaint filed on the 12th of February, 1972 mentions of serious incidents at about 2 P.M. on the 10th of February, 1972. But there is no whisper of the incident in the report given by the complainant to the police at about 4 P.M. on that day, rather what is said is that there is apprehension of attack by the petitioner. The police visited the spot on the same day i.e. 10th February 1972 and did not find anything to support the version sought to be made out in the petition of Complaint. These facts were not before the enquiring Magistrate and, as such, he was handicapped. Now that these facts have been brought before this court, they cannot be ignored, Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I think that the complainant has no case to the jury. The application, therefore, is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Now that these facts have been brought before this court, they cannot be ignored, Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I think that the complainant has no case to the jury. The application, therefore, is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Application Allowed.