Judgment B.P.Singh, J. 1. In this application Under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have challenged to the order, dated 27-7-1989 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah in Trial No.-724/88 / 461/89 whereby the learned Magistrate has framed various charges Under Secs. 379, 148, 323 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. From the fact stated in the petition, it appears that the petitioners have, in effect, asked for quashing of the criminal prosecution itself on the ground that the same is an abuse of the process of the Court. Petitioner No. 1 is the S.D.O. Zilla Parishad, whereas petitioner Nos. 4 and 3 are its Engineer and Junior Engineer respectively. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 5 are members of the staff of Zilla Parishad. 2. Opposite party No. 2 herein lodged a complaint on 2-8-1984 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah. In the said complaint it was stated that on 1st April, 1984 the petitioners and some others armed with deadly weapons were trying to break open the lock of the shop of the opposite party No. 2 and one Jugal Sah. The complainant opposite party No. 2 protested, whereupon he was assaulted by the petitioners with fists and slape. It is further alleged in the complaint that petitioner No. 1 Chhote Lal Prasad, who happened to be the S.D.O. of Zilla Parishad, snatched away his gold chain worth Rs. 1, 500 Similarly, other accused persons took away two wrist watches and cash amount of Rs. 155 from the complainant and his brother Brahmdeo Prasad. While the occurrence was in progress the police came and aprehended one of the persons, namely Ranjit Baptist (not petitioner), and took him to the police station. Opposite party No. 2 also went to the police station and lodged a recort. Unfortunately, the police released the police released the aforesaid Ranji Baptist, and thereafter took no action against the petitioners. It is further stated that on 2-6-1984 and 4-6-1984 the petitioner and other employees of Zilla Parishad repeated the incident. Opposite party No. 2 lodged a report but no action was taken The complainant opposite party No. 2 apprehending that he may be dispossessed from his shop applied to the Collector and the Collector was pleased to pass an order directing maintenance of status quo. Opposite party No. 2 lodged a report but no action was taken The complainant opposite party No. 2 apprehending that he may be dispossessed from his shop applied to the Collector and the Collector was pleased to pass an order directing maintenance of status quo. It is further case of opposite party No. 2 that since he apprehended that further attempts may be made to dispossess him from his shop, he filed a writ petition before the High Court, and the High Court passed an order directing Zilla Parishad to release the article taken away from his shop to him and Jujal Sah. Ultimately opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 28-1984. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance on 20th April, 1987. and thereafter framed charges on 27-7-1989 which is impugned in this application. 3. The petitioners, on the other hand, contend that the case made out in the complaint is a false case and is baseless. The petitioners (complainant) out of sheer vendetta and with a view to harass and browbeat the petitioners into submission filed the complaint for initiation of a criminal proceeding against the petitioners The petitioners are employees of the Zilla Parishad, and have no reason to behave with the complainant in this fashion. The petitioners brought to the notice of the Chief judicial Magistrate certain facts to satisfy the Court that the criminal proceeding was an abuse of the process of the Court, and that opposite party No. 2 herein, who was sought to be evicted from the shop belonging to the Zilla Parishad has resorted to a criminal proceeding only to harass the petitioners. The petitioner contend that originally the shop was allotted to the father of opposite party No. 2 and Brahmdeo Prasad illegally continued in possession of the shop without paying rent therefor that shop has been allotted to another person by the Zilla Parishad. Moreover, they were proceedings against the petitioners for removal of encroachment. On account of these facts the petitioners out of sheer vengeance filed the complaint against the petitioners with a view to harass them by abusing the process of the Court. 4. Moreover, they were proceedings against the petitioners for removal of encroachment. On account of these facts the petitioners out of sheer vengeance filed the complaint against the petitioners with a view to harass them by abusing the process of the Court. 4. It is stated that in regard to an incident which took place on 2nd June, 1984 which has been mentioned in the complaint petition, opposite party No. 2 had filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was numbered as C.W.J.C. No. 30 of 1984. The petitioners had complained before the High Court in the said writ petition that the Zilla Parishad had put its lock on his shop after removing the articles from the shop. It was prayed that possession of the shop may be restored in the proceeding and claimed that the shop belonged to the Zilla Parishad, and that the same had been allotted to another person. Ultimately, by order, dated 9-1-1985 (Annexure-2) the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submitted that the arising out of the incident on June, 1954 the petitioners (complainant) had filed a writ petition and that could give an indication as to what really happened on that date. The allegations made in the complaint are quite different, and support the case of the petitioners that they are only sought to be harassed. The petitioners further state that opposite party No. 2 has referred to the complaint made by him before the Collector. The petitioners have produced an order of the Collector (Annexure-3) from which it app are that Case No. R.M. 41/84-85 was registered on the application of Jugal Sah and others. The proceeding related to removal of encroachment from public land. After considering the facts of the case, the Collector came to the conclusion that the appellants had no rightful claim to run their shop over the Government land. From these facts, it appears that steps had been taken for removing encroachment, and the officers of the Zilla Parishad had taken necessary steps which were challenged before the Collector. The same was, however, dismissed. 5. The petitioners further point out that the instant complaint was filed on 2nd August, 1984. On the same day a report was made by the officer-in-charge of Bettiah police station for initiation of a proceeding Under Sec. 144, Cr. The same was, however, dismissed. 5. The petitioners further point out that the instant complaint was filed on 2nd August, 1984. On the same day a report was made by the officer-in-charge of Bettiah police station for initiation of a proceeding Under Sec. 144, Cr. P.C. and the opposite party No. 2 as well as the Zilla Parishad were sought to be made parties such a proceeding was initiated. but by order dated 29-9-1984 the Sub-divisional Magistrate converted the the same into a proceeding Under Sec. 145, Cr. P.C Ultimately, the proceeding was dropped by order, dated 14-10-1985 in view of the fact that the dispute relating to the shop in question was the subject-matter of civil suit between the parties which included the Zilla Parishad. The revision preferred before the learned Sessions Judge was also rejected. These orders are annexed as Annexures 6 and 7 respectively. 6. The facts stated in the application Under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have not been controverted by the opposite parties herein. Moreover, the documents on which reliance is placed are of unimpeachable character, and there is an indirect reference to those proceeding in the complaint itself. From these documents and the averments contained in the application it is clear that there was a dispute at the relevant time between tae Zilla Parishad and the petitioners. It also opposite party No. 2 was sought to be evicted from the shop in question which is laid to have been allotted to some other person. It further appears that steps were taken by the Zilla Parishad for removal of encroachment and opposite party No. 2 and others were aggrieved by the removal of such encroachment. These gave rise to a writ petition before the High Court as also to a proceeding before the Collector. Opposite party No. 2 did not succeed in any of the proceedings, and appears to have been dispossessed by the Zilla Parishad. One can very well appreciate the anger of opposite party No. 2, but the same time one has to appreciate the predicament of the petitioners, who, as officers of the Zilla Parishad were required to perform their duties on behalf of the Zilla Parishad including the unpleasant duty of removing an illegal occupant. One can very well appreciate the anger of opposite party No. 2, but the same time one has to appreciate the predicament of the petitioners, who, as officers of the Zilla Parishad were required to perform their duties on behalf of the Zilla Parishad including the unpleasant duty of removing an illegal occupant. This appears to be the obvious reason for opposite party No. 2 to initiate a criminal proceeding against the petitioners by lodging a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the occurrence is said to have taken place on 1st April, 1984, and the complaint was lodged four months later on 2nd August, 1984. No particulars have been given as to what happened on 2nd June, 1984 and 4th June, 1984, though reference is made to similar incidents on that date. There, however, some indication about the real facts from the writ petition tiled by Jugal Sah and others which was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn. From the averments, in the application it appears that in that writ petition a complaint was made that the officers of the Zilla Parishad had put their lock on the shop and removed the articles therefrom. The prayer for restoration of possession was not granted in that writ petition. There is no reason why employees of the Zilla Parishad headed by responsible officer of Zilla Parishad of the rank of S.D.O. should either assault anyone or snatch away his chain or wrist watch or small amount of cash. Such allegations appear to be false on the face of it and must be rejected as inherently incredible. The real reason appears to be that the opposite party No. 2 was dispossessed from the shop in question by the petitioners and to wreck vengeance the instant proceeding has been initiated against them, by opposite party No. 2. On an overall appraisal of the case I have no doubt in my mind that the petitioners are victims of personal vendetta of opposite party No. 2, who seems to be aggrieved by the action taken by the petitioners in discharge of official duties. Facts have been exaggerated to make it appear as if the petitioners committed criminal offences while dispossessing opposite party No. 2 from his shop. Facts have been exaggerated to make it appear as if the petitioners committed criminal offences while dispossessing opposite party No. 2 from his shop. If these facts were critically scrutinised by the learned Magistrate, it would have been apparent to him that it was not in the interest of justice to continue the proceeding, and that having regard to the surrounding facts and circumstances the criminal proceeding was an abuse of the process of the Court. 7. In these circumstances, this application is allowed and the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, dated 27-7-1989 in Trial No. 24/88 / 461/89 framing charges against the petitioner is quashed.