Judgment Birendra Prasad Sinha, J. 1. This application by Shri Ram Goenka and his minor son Raj Kumar Goenka is directed against an order dated the 25th september, 1974, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur, in G. R. Case No.1816 of 1974/t. R.3415 of 1974. By this order cognizance was taken against the petitioners of the offence under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. On the 17th August, 1974, a petition of complaint was filed by opposite party Sampat Raj against the petitioners and one Sanwarmal Goenka alleging, inter alia, that the complainant had gone to Samastipur Court for the verification of a sale-deed and thereafter he went to the saw mill of one Topan Das for purchasing wood. He had with him a sura of Rs.3000. The petitioners as well as Sanwarmal Goenka are alleged to have stopped the complainant on the road and threatened him with dire consequences because he had demanded a sum of Rs.1,150 as his dues from the petitioners in presence of many persons. Petitioner No.2 Raj Kumar Goenka alias Raju came down from the rickshaw and pointed an iron-rod at the face of the complainant and Sanwarmal forcibly snatched the bag containing Rs.3,000. Thereafter, petitioner No.2 Raj Kumar goenka is said to have hit the complainant with the iron-rod due to which he sustained some injury and began to cry. It was alleged that the petitioners had done this with the intention to kill the complainant and rob him of the money. The complainant was also the eatened that if he informed anybody about the incident, he would be killed. 3. It appears that the complainant was not examined on solemn affirmation on that day nor any medical certificate was filed showing any injury. On 29.8.74, a petition seems to have been filed by the complainant stating, inter alia, that the petitioners and the complainant were neighbours and relations, close kith and kins and good feelings had been restored between them and, therefore, the complainant opposite-party did not like to proceed with the case or to adduce any evidence against them. It was further stated that the petitioners had been made accused due to misunderstanding and misguidance. The petition was ordered to be put up on the date fixed. On 25.9.74, the complainant appeared, filed an application along with a medical certificate and examined himself on solemn affirmation. It was further stated that the petitioners had been made accused due to misunderstanding and misguidance. The petition was ordered to be put up on the date fixed. On 25.9.74, the complainant appeared, filed an application along with a medical certificate and examined himself on solemn affirmation. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and transferred the case to Shri Jai Kishore Narayan, Judicial Magistrate, first class, for disposal. 4. Shri B. K. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended before me that this case maliciously false and it will be a sheer abuse of the process of the Court to proceed against the petitioners on the basis of such a complaint. He submitted that petitioner No.2 Raj kumar Goenka alias Raju, who is son of petitioner No.1, was aged hardly three years at the time of the alleged occurenece and it was unthinkable that he would commit any offence, much less an offence under section 392 of the indian Penal Code alleged against him. He further submitted that it was atrocious and shocking that such an allegation should have been made by any person against an infant child. At this, I wanted to see petitioner No.2 Raj kumar Goenka myself and Shri Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, undertook to produce the boy in Court. The hearing of the case was adjourned for this purpose and the boy was produced before me in Court on a subsequent date. Shri Prem Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing for the complainant opposite-party, was also present in Court when the boy was produced. The boy hardly looked to be five years old. 5. In paragraph four of the petition it has been specifically stated that petitioner No.2 was an infant aged three years. On the last date of hearing, i. e. on 21.11.77, a petition was filed on behalf of the complainant through shri Prem Kumar Verma, stating that the petitioners and the complainant were relations, close neighbours and close kith and kins ; that good feelings had been restored between them and, therefore, the complainant did not like to proceed with the case. It is significant to note that the statements made in the application of the petitioners about the age of petitioner No.2 has not beeen denied. It is significant to note that the statements made in the application of the petitioners about the age of petitioner No.2 has not beeen denied. The petition of the complainant dated 21.11.77 is a virtual reproduction of the petition filed by him before the Chief Judicial Magistrate oa 29.8.74 It is thus admitted that petitioner No.2, Raj Kumar Goenka is an infant and was so at the time of the alleged incident. On the face of it, therefore, the allegation against the petitioners appears to be false and malicious. It is unimaginable that a child of three years will commit any crime. It is shocking to anybodys conscience that a person should come forward with such mad and baseless allegations. It will, therefore, be undesirable to allow such a proceeding to continue. It is true that at this stage it is not the function of this Court to find out as to whether an allegation is false or true, but in the facts and circumstances of the present case it will be a gross misuse of the process of the Court if the proceedings are not quashed at this stage itself when it is apparent that the offence could not be committed in the manner alleged. It should be the duty of court not to act mechanically in such matters and to see that unscrupulous persons do not succeed in setting into motion the wheels of justice so falsely and maliciously. Apart from the malicious nature of the allegations made by the complainant, his conduct has also been reprehensible. After filing of the complaint he filed a petition stating that good relations had been restored between the parties but soon threreafter he examined himself on solemn affirmation supporting his complaint. Such attitude on the part of the complainant deserves condemnation. 6. Accordingly, I allow this application and quash the entire proceedings against the petitioners pending in the Court below in G. R. Case No.1816 of 1974/t. R.3145 of 1974 application allowed.