Judgment R. P. Slnha, J. 1. -this is an application under section 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioner for quashing the order passed on 12.4.73 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea taking cognizance against him for an offence under section 290 of the Indian Penal Code, on the complaint filed by the Offlcer-in-charge of Police Station, Sadar, Purnea. 2. It appears that the Officer-in-charge was reported by some of the people like Md. Ibrahim, Md. Sayeed, Md. Shafique, that the petitioner visited the house of one Asghar Munshi at 8.30 to 9 p. m. every night, parked his car in front of his house and stayed inside the house till late in ths female apartment of Asghar Munshi. The complaint was filed regarding one such visit which had taken place on 30.8 72. The allegation against the petitioner in the petition of complaint has been that for this type of visit by the petitioner the people of the mohalla were feeling ashamed and so it was prayed that action should be taken againit him under section 290 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Section 268 of the Indian Penal Code which gives the definition of "public nuisance" reads as follows :- "a person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right. A common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage. " However if the facts alleged against the petitioner are taken on their face value and accepted to be true, yet it is very difficult to say definitely that his regular visit to the house of Asghar Munshi amounts to an offence under section 268 and is punishable under section 290 of the Indian Penal Code. His visit may cause some annoyance to some individual but it cannot be termed as public nuisance under the definition of the offence quoted above. His visit may cause some annoyance to some individual but it cannot be termed as public nuisance under the definition of the offence quoted above. 4 Learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to a decision of this court in the case of Bishwanth Prasad V/s. State ( 1978 BBCJ 313 ) where the facts alleged against the petitioner in that case were more vulgar than the suggestion made in the present application against the petitioner, yet it was held in that case that the act being performed in one room of hotel cannot be said to be one which is performed in a public place which may cause injury, danger or annoyance to the people In general. In my opinion, the facts alleged in the petition of complaint even if accepted on their face value, do not constitute the offence of public nuisance within the meaning of section 268 of the Indian Penal code which is punishable under section 290 of the said Code, I, therefore, think that it will be a mere abuse of the process of court to continue the proceeding against the petitioner. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed and the proceeding against the petitioner is quashed. Petition allowed.