JUDGMENT Uday Sinha, J. This is an application filed by the petitioners to quash their prosecution under section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cognizance of which was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna by order dated 6th February, 1975. 2. Petitioner no. 3 is wife of late Dr. R. B. Singh 'Birat'. Petitioner No.4 is hr unmarried daughter, petitioner no. 1 is her son who is student of Intermediate Science of Patna Science College and petitioner no. 2 is a relation of petitioner no. 3. 3. It appears that disputes have been going on between Baidyanath Pd. Singh and Damyanti Devi on one hand and the petitioners on the ether in regard to a house in Sri krishnapuri Smt. Damaynti Devi and Baidyanath Prasad Singh claim to have purchased that house and they wanted the petitioners to vacate it. A civil suit for eviction of the petitioners is also pending in civil court. While the civil suit was pending a complaint was filed on 6.12.1975 by Chandrika Yadav claiming to be the caretaker of Damyanti Devi. It was alleged that the petitioners had committed an offence under section 394 of the Indian Penal Code inasmuch as on 1.11.1975, they removed 5 (five) bags of cement and building materials such as spade, basket etc. It was alleged in the complaint that Chandrika Yadav had gone to the house which was in occupation of the petitioners at about 1.30 p.m. On the date of occurrence for repairing a wall, when the petitioners all on a sudden entered into the shed III the compound of the house and abused Chandrika Yadav in filthy language. They also looted away the cement bags and other implements. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were alleged to have assaulted the complainant with lathi. Thus, according to complainant, with a view to committing theft of articles belonging to the complainant the petitioners removed building materials worth Rs. 1,000/-. The complainant averred in para 7 that he raised hulla, on which witnesses rushed up and his life was saved. On receiving this complaint, the Chief Judicial Magistrate examined the complainant, on solemn affirmation and straight way took cognizance under section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. He also issued processes. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance have filed the present application for quashing their prosecution. 4. On receiving this complaint, the Chief Judicial Magistrate examined the complainant, on solemn affirmation and straight way took cognizance under section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. He also issued processes. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance have filed the present application for quashing their prosecution. 4. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioners that the prosecution of the petitioners was absolutely malafide and was actuated by the motive of coercion. The petitioners are not vacating the house for which the owner of the house has taken eviction suit. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the opposite parties, I have no manner of doubt that there were several aspects of the matter which required consideration by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. It was very wrong on his part to have straight way taken cognizance of an offence under section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and issued process against all the accused. 5. Out of the 4 accused one is widow and petitioner no.4 is her daughter, On the side of the complainant there was, besides Chandrika Yadav himself, Ralaskhan Mistry, Many Yadav, Mangal Gope and Dr. Rajendra Prasad. I do not know whether the learned Magistrate applied himself judicially, whether the allegation could be true or not. In para 6, it has been stated that the accused persons looted away the personal belongings, cash, utensils and other building materials. This averment should have received close scrutiny by the learned Magistrate, in the background of all probabilities, how and from whose possession the cash was removed, what utensil was removed. What personal belongings were removed should have been a matter for consideration before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. In para 7 of the complaint, it has been averred that the petitioners raised hulla on which the witnesses turned up and the life of Chandrika Yadav was saved. The learned Magistrate should have applied himself as to whether Chandrik1a Yadav in the company of the five persons, mentioned above, stood in any danger of loosing his life or not. The learned Magistrate's attention should have been directed to consider whether the allegations were really true or were they intended to provide him an easy remedy of getting the house vacated. These are only some of the aspects, which requires consideration by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The learned Magistrate's attention should have been directed to consider whether the allegations were really true or were they intended to provide him an easy remedy of getting the house vacated. These are only some of the aspects, which requires consideration by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. There are other aspects which I do not intend to deal in detail. 6. Thus, I am satisfied that the learned Magistrate did not apply his juel4cial mind. The application is, therefore, allowed dated 6.2.1976. is quashed and the case sent back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who will consider the desirability of getting the matter investigated or holding any enquiry before issuing processes against the accused. Application allowed.