Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 8-12-1993, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna, in complaint Case No. 809 (C)/93 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner, and also for quashing of the entire criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner. 2. Short facts giving rise to this application are as under : Complainant-opposite party No. 2 filed a petition of complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Maistrate. Patna, stating therein that he had read the newspaper "Hindustan" on 22-5-1993 published from Patna and came to know that the petitioner made a statement before the gathering in Jama Masjid, New Delhi, on 21-5-1993 before Friday prayer that he and his son shall not appear before the court pursuant to summons issued by a mad court, upon a complaint filed by a mad man. The complainant has further alleged in the complaint that he being a practising lawyer felt defamed by the alleged statement made by the petitioner in the newspaper. 3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the basis of the complaint petition examined the complainant on solemn affirmation and transferred the case under Section 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enquiry before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, and the transferee Court, thereafter, enquired into the matter and took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and issued processes for his appearance in the court. 4. It appears that while hearing this application on 30-8-1995, this court directed the petitioner to swear affidavit before the Magistrate in support of the statement made in paragraph Nos. 1 to 12 of the present application and that the petitioner has full respect for the court. Pursuant so the order aforesaid the petitioner has filed an affidavit before the learned Magistrate duly sworn by the petitioner, which is on record of this application at Flag-D. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the present case is totally politically motivated and the complaint petition has been filed just to harass and humiliate the petitioner and to tarnish his social, political and religious image. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the present case is totally politically motivated and the complaint petition has been filed just to harass and humiliate the petitioner and to tarnish his social, political and religious image. It is further submitted that there is no material to show that the petitioner had given any statement in any newspaper. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 has, however, submitted that in view of the facts alleged in the complaint petition, the offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. 7. I have examined the affidavit filed by the petitioner as well as the complaint petition filed in this case. 8. From the affidavit of the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner has expressed his deep respect for the court concerned and has also supported the statements made in paragraph Nos. 8 to 12 of this application. 9. In this case, it appears that on the basis of the news item published in the daily newspaper "Hindustan" dated 12-5-1993 the complainant opposite party No. 2 has felt defamed, but at the same time it appears that there is nothing on the record to show that any witness has been examined on behalf of the complainant in the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure showing that the alleged statement was made by the petitioner in his presence. The petitioner has already disowned by filing an affidavit that he had ever made such statement in the newspaper and the newspaper has been misquoted him. On a complaint petition, the duty is cast upon the court to scrutinise the materials on record and see as to whether a prima facie offence is made out or not, in absence of any cogent material that the statement in question was made by the petitioner, the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence merely on the basis of the news item published in the newspaper. The Court below, therefore in my opinion, was hyper-technical in taking cognizance of the offence in absence of materials disclosing an offence against the petitioner. 10. The Court below, therefore in my opinion, was hyper-technical in taking cognizance of the offence in absence of materials disclosing an offence against the petitioner. 10. In that view of the mater, I am of the opinion that the uncontroverted allegations leveled in the complaint petition does not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the petitioner and thus the instant case is also squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335. 11. For the reasons aforesaid the criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner thus will be an abuse of the process of the Court and the same is, therefore, liable to be quashed. 12. In the result this application is allowed and the entire criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner, including the order impugned taking cognizance, is hereby quashed.