Judgment L.P.N.Shahdeo, J. 1. This is an application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order of taking cognizance, dated 14-2-1985 passed by Shri B. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chas in the district of Dhanbad whereby he had taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 420, 427, 120-B and 109, Indian Penal Code in the following circumstances. 2. The petitioner No. 1 is a Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Bye Pass Road, Chas in the district of Dhanbad and petitioner No. 2 was the then Assistant Manager of the same National Insurance Company. The Opposite-party No. 2 had filed a complaint on 3-1-1985 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Chas, that an accident had taken place on 22-8-1983 in which the vehicle of the complainant bearing No. B.R.G. 5419 (Tekkar) was badly damaged which was insured with the aforesaid National Insurance Company case of the complainant was that Shri G.K. Sharma was appointed Surveyor and the damaged Tekkar was brought to a particular Garrage for assessing the damage caused to that vehicle. The vehicle was brought to the City Auto Works to get the survey done by the aforesaid surveyor. The Surveyor examined the vehicle and requested the complainant to meet him at his residence for preparation of estimated costs and ultimately the Surveyor demanded Rs. 4,000 from the complainant for submission of the estimate. The complainant did not pay the illegal demand of the Surveyor and he made a complaint to the petitioners who, it is alleged, had directed him to get the matters settled with the Surveyor. It is therefore, alleged that the petitioners who were Officers of the National Insurance Company connived with them and in their conspiracy, the Surveyor had demanded illegal gratification. 3. On the aforesaid allegation, a complaint petition was filed and thereafter cognizance was taken as indicated above which is being challenged in this application. 4. Learned Counsel Mr. Bhowmik, appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are public servant in the meaning of Sec.21 of the Indian Penal Code and their action was in good faith and is also protected under General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 and under Sections 30 and 38 of the Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Bhowmik, appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are public servant in the meaning of Sec.21 of the Indian Penal Code and their action was in good faith and is also protected under General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 and under Sections 30 and 38 of the Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). His further argument is that even on the face value of the allegation, no case under Sections 420 and 427 appears to have been made out against these two petitioners and as such order of taking cognizance against them is bad in law. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 (complainant has submitted that they were officers of the company and the complainant had made a complaint with regard to the matters conducted by the surveyor and, therefore, they are liable for prosecution as they had connived with the Surveyor and under that circumstance, no sanction is necessary for prosecuting these two petitioners. 6. In the complaint petition, no allegation has been made against these two petitioners except in paragraph 9 of the complaint petition. In paragraph 9, it has been stated that he had made oral complaint to the Senior Divisional Officers who had expressed his inability but told that the matter be settled with the Surveyor and at last the pleaders notice was served on these two petitioners. This statement of the complainant was orally made at the time of filing of the complaint. He had not made any written complaint against these two petitioners. The allegations made against them is that these petitioners had expressed their inability to help him. Therefore, the allegations levelled against these two petitioners do not make out a case of cheating. It is not stated that he had demanded anything from the complainant or paid anything because of their action. In this view of the matter, illegal demand of money or illegal gratification of Rs. 4,000 has no nexus or proximity to the act of the petitioners alleged by the complainant against the petitioners. These statements show that they had expressed their inability to help the complainant which indicates that these two petitioners had no criminal intention at that time to do anything for illegal gain. 4,000 has no nexus or proximity to the act of the petitioners alleged by the complainant against the petitioners. These statements show that they had expressed their inability to help the complainant which indicates that these two petitioners had no criminal intention at that time to do anything for illegal gain. It makes clear that there was some negligence in performing their official duties but this type of negligence in performing their duties lay against them does not made out a case of cheating rattier they were departmentally liable but no criminal case is made out against them on the allegation that they had not co-operated with the work of the complainant. The complainant had made some case against the Surveyor but nothing against these two petitioners Therefore, the allegations against them that they were simply not co-operating or helping the complainant is not sufficient to make out any criminal case whatsoever against them. 7. Admittedly, both the petitioners are public servants as defined under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. Their action or acts done is discharged of their official duties in good faith under Sec.38 of the aforesaid Act does not make out a case of cheating. Sec.38 of the aforesaid Act provides protection of action taken in good faith. Sec.38 of the Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 reads as follows: No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against any officer of the Central Government or officer or other employee of the Corporation or of the acquiring company for anything which is in good faith done or intend to be done under this Act. 8. The acts of the petitioners have been done in good faith in discharge of their official duties, no case of cheating is made out. Admittedly in this case, no sanction has been obtained. Therefore, criminal prosecution of these two petitioners only for the alleged inability to co-operate, the complainant must be held to be bad. In fact, on that ground alone, the prosecution against the petitioners is fit to be quashed. Admittedly in this case, no sanction has been obtained. Therefore, criminal prosecution of these two petitioners only for the alleged inability to co-operate, the complainant must be held to be bad. In fact, on that ground alone, the prosecution against the petitioners is fit to be quashed. It must be made clear that on the merit also, I have held that no case for criminal prosecution against these petitioners has been made out and, therefore, on that ground also criminal prosecution of the petitioners must be held to be bad and as such, such nature of criminal prosecution undoubtedly amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. 9. In the result, this application is allowed and the criminal prosecution and the impugned order of taking cognizance against these petitioners only are quashed. Let the record be sent down to the trial Court and the trial will proceed against rest of the accused. Any observation made will not affect or prejudice the case of either parties during the trial.