JUDGMENT A.B. Srivastava, J. - By means of this application U/s. 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has sought quashing of a criminal Complaint for an offence under sections 328, 324, 394 IPC filed by the O.P. and the proceedings in criminal case No. 2383 of 136 based on the said complaint pending in the court of Ist Addl. Munsif Magistrate Jaunpur. 2. The criminal complaint was filed by the opposite party Laxmi Narain against the applicant Juhi, her daughter Champa Rani, both of whom are dancing girls and Baijnath who is their Sajinda alleging that the complainant who was very Gloss to Smt. Champa and Juhi attended the marriage of their brother, where they asked him to accompany them to Bombay as they had arranged to purchase a flat. The complainant was asked to arrange for some money also. On 6.12.1986 at about 6.20 A.M. the complainant boarded Faizabad Parwadeeh passenger at Bhandaria Jaunpur station with a brief ease containing Rs. 15,500/- and clothes. The three accused persons were already present in the said train. As it was very cold, at the instance of Champa and Juhi, Baijnath gave a cup of tea from a thermos to the complainant who after consuming fell asleep. At about 9.45 A.M. when the train reached Varanasi and complainant woke up, he found the three accused persons not on the train and his brief case with the money was missing. The fellow passengers informed the complainant that accused persons alighted at Jalalganj station. On these allegations a prayer was made to summon the accused persons for trial for offences under sections 328, 334, 394 IPC. The learned Magistrate after recording the statement of complainant and one Priya Singh under section 200 and 302 Cr.P.C. summoned the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. The said criminal complaint filed by the opposite party and cognizance taken by the Magistrate have been challenged by the applicant as an abuse of process of court on the ground that the opposite party Laxmi Narain has been harassing her and her daughter by a series of litigations filed at his instance. He filed the present complaint when his earlier complaint was transferred from Junpur to Ghazipurand and was ultimately dismissed in 1965. He filed the present complaint when his earlier complaint was transferred from Junpur to Ghazipurand and was ultimately dismissed in 1965. It is also contended that even on the basis of allegations in the complaint and evidence led in support, no offence at all under any of the Sections is made out. 3. The opposite party in his counter affidavit has denied that the previous complaints against the applicant and her daughter were filed at his instance and has also contended that the present prosecution of the applicant has been launched and cognizance taken on account of there being sufficient materials to proceed. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record, it will be found that the proceedings arising out of the criminal complaint against the applicant and the other accused persons are clearly an abuse of process of court, as even if the allegations in the complaint and the evidence led in support thereof is taken on face value, none of the ingredients of offences under section 323, 334 & 394 are made out. 5. Barring bald allegation of the complainant, opposite party, that he was given a cup of tea by Baijnath at the instance of other two accused persons and after consuming the same he fell asleep and the accused persons decamped with his brief ease containing money, there is no other supporting evidence of circumstance. There is not even a whisper in the complaint that any of the witnesses had seen the complainant putting the money in his brief case or the persons or any one of them mixing any intoxicating drug in the tea or administering the same to the opposite party. The complaint merely makes cryptic reference to the effect that the witnesses named in the complaints, Basudeo Rajai, Jawali and Priya Singh informed the opposite party that the accused persons had alighted at Jalalganj Station. Even they are not alleged to have seen the applicant or her co-accused persons taking the brief ease while alighting from the train. 6. The very story in the complaint set forth by the opposite party appears to be nothing but a cock and bull story. Even they are not alleged to have seen the applicant or her co-accused persons taking the brief ease while alighting from the train. 6. The very story in the complaint set forth by the opposite party appears to be nothing but a cock and bull story. On the one hand, he says that the accused persons are dancing girls carrying on their profession in their home town, and another says that they have their business in Bombay, without disclosing the nature of the said business. There is also nothing to show that as a man of ordinary prudence, any enquiry was made by him, before dancing to lake a huge amount to Bombay about there being a genuine talk of property transaction. 7. In fact the materials placed on record, coupled with circumstances show that opposite party and his follow men have been on the trail of these dancing girls since some time past, and one alter other criminal prosecution by filing complaints was launched but with no success. Both those complaints had been transferred under orders of this court from Jaunpur to Ghazipur on account of allegations of threat to their security at the hands of the complainants of these cases as well as their accomplice Laxmi Narain the present applicant. Annexure-2 to the first petition also shows that in the year 1978, an application had also been made by the present applicant Juhi Devi to the effect that present opposite party and his accomplice had taken away her daughter Champa Rani who had gone to attend a Barat for dance performance. Viewed in the light of these glaring circumstances, and also in the absence of even prima facie evidence to connect the accused persons with the offences of administering intoxicating drug causing hurt, or robbing the opposite party of his money, there is no escape from the conclusion that the prosecution launched against them is pure and simple vendetta and an abuse of process of court and the same is liable to be quashed. 8. The principles laid down in Bhagwan Das Agrawal v. State of U.P. 1990 A.Cr.R. 1. and Mr. 8. The principles laid down in Bhagwan Das Agrawal v. State of U.P. 1990 A.Cr.R. 1. and Mr. Chanalakshmi v. K. Prasanna Kumar and others 1990 A.Cr.R. 11(S.C)., cited by (he opposite party do not help him in so far as in the instant case even on the averments in the complaint and the material relied in support thereof, no offence under sections 323, 334 and 394 IPC was prima facie disclosed. 9. For these reasons therefore, the criminal complaint being case No. 2383/a under sections 323, 334 and 394 IPC Laxmi Narain v. Baij Nath and others pending in the court of 1st Addl. Munsif Magistrate Jaunpur and entire proceedings in the said case are liable to be, and are hereby quashed.