K. J. VAIDYA, J. ( 1 ) TWO petitioners herein, by this Misc. Criminal Application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short "code] have moved this Court, inter alia, praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 7-1-1993, rendered in Criminal Case No. 4 of 1992 by the learned J. M. F. C. , Vadodara. This order came to be passed on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 against the petitioners for the alleged offences punishable under Secs. 406 and 114 of the I. P. C. , whereby the learned magistrate ordering inquiry to be held under Sec. 202 of the Code, directed the complainant to keep his witnesses present before the Court on 30-1-1992. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the complainant - Rahul Kanubhai Aashar, he had taken a loan of Rs. 10,000. 00 from Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank at Vadodara, against the gold ornaments of his wife and despite the fact that he had re-paid the entire outstanding dues with interest in the said regard by depositing Rs. 10,650/ - on 6-1-1992, when he demanded back the golden ornaments in question, both mr. Nayak, Branch Manager and Mr. Rakesh Bhagat, Advance Officer of the bank; acting in consert, blatantly refused to deliver the same and thereby they have committed an offence of criminal breach of trust punishable under Sec. 406, read with Sec. 114 of the I. P. C. On the basis of these allegations, a complaint was filed against both these bank officers in the Court of learned J. M. F. C. , Vadodara which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 4 of 1992. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate on the basis of the said complaint, by an order dated 7-1-1992 ordered an inquiry under Sec. 202 of the Code directing the complainant to keep his witnesses present before the Court on 30-1-1992. It is this impugned order which has been brought under challenge by the two petitioners-accused, as stated above in para-1 of this judgment. ( 3 ) NOW on screening the complaint, four things clearly surface on top of it. It is this impugned order which has been brought under challenge by the two petitioners-accused, as stated above in para-1 of this judgment. ( 3 ) NOW on screening the complaint, four things clearly surface on top of it. They are; firstly, both the petitioners-accused are the responsible officers of the bank; Secondly, it is alleged that both of them did not return the golden ornaments deposited in the bank towards the loan, despite the fact that the loan amount was duly paid back with interest; thirdly, in the complaint there is nothing to indicate that they dishonestly refused to return the ornaments; and fourthly, there is also nothing in the complaint to further indicate that apart dishonest intention, the ornaments have been converted to the personal use of the said two bank officers. What is simply alleged in the complaint is the fact that though the bank was supposed to return ornaments deposited with it immediately on repayment of the loan amount, the same has not been returned. Now, the end result of this screening is that there may or may not be any justifiable ground for the bank officers not to return back the ornaments, and further accordingly, this may or may not be actionable civil wrong, but under no circumstances, by any stretch of imagination, it can ever be said that the facts alleged in the complaint, as they are, constitute any criminal offence. It further appears that the complainant had also taken other loans from the said Bank to the tune of Rs. 2,35,085-11 p. , which he has not repaid and for which Arbitration Suit No. 1991 of 1991 is filed in the Court of the Board of nominees. In this view of the matter, when even semblance of criminal offence is not made out, the learned Magistrate has committed an obvious and patent error in passing the impugned order under Sec. 202 of the Code. ( 4 ) ). Mr. K. P. Raval, the learned A. P. P. while opposing this application submitted that the same is ex-facie premature for the simple reason that the inquiry ordered under Sec. 202 of the Code is strictly a matter between the complainant and the trial Court and at this stage, since the Court has not issued any process against the petitioners-accused, there was no question of quashing the same. ( 5 ) NO doubt, in a way, the learned A. P. P. may be technically right, however, this is not the only way to look at the matter. In fact, in such type of cases like the present one, what is really and substantially required to be considered is when the facts alleged in the complaint do not disclose any ingredients constituting the offence worth the name, whether such a complaint can ever be mechanically entertained, and pursuant thereto an inquiry be directed under Sec. 202 of the Code ? The importance of this question is this-wise that if such orders are mechanically passed, in the first instance, it will tell upon the precious public time of the Court, as the examination of the witnesses is bound to consume some time. Now whether these things can be permitted when the Court is already over-burdened with the back-log of cases ? In the second instance, it will also cause unnecessary physical, mental and financial hardships and inconvenience to the witnesses in attending Court, more particularly in the background of virus of strike calls and adjournments, relapsing any moment, and in third instance, why indeed should accused against whom there is not even teetle of evidence to make out any offence, should unnecessarily be subjected to pending of proceeding like the sword of Democles hanging over the head with all its uncertainty, for indefinite period till the trial is over. These questions in fact are simple enough requiring any lengthy debate. In this view of the matter, when the complaint does not contain any germ of offence and accordingly when there is not even the bleakest of the possibility of conviction, merely because the Court has ordered inquiry under Sec. 202 of the Code and not issued any process against the petitioners-accused, that by itself cannot be permitted to obscure the judicial vision of this Court to quash the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. This Court cannot be party to the mechnical orders passed under Sec. 202 of the Code with the consequence of impending fear of totally hopeless criminal cases over the head of the accused persons who in the instant case are the responsible bank officers who might have bona fidely exercised their duty. This Court cannot be party to the mechnical orders passed under Sec. 202 of the Code with the consequence of impending fear of totally hopeless criminal cases over the head of the accused persons who in the instant case are the responsible bank officers who might have bona fidely exercised their duty. Under the circumstances, when the complainant does not disclose any prima facie offence, the learned Magistrate having committed a patent and obvious error in passing the order under Sec. 202 of the Code, the said order requires to be quashed, as such an inquiry would be nothing but a fruitless exercise or waste of public time as well as money, which cannot be allowed under any circumstance. ( 6 ) IN the result, this Misc. Criminal Application is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned J. M. F. C. , Vadodara under Sec. 202 of the Code is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. Interim relief vacated. .