Judgment Nagendra Rai, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, who at the relevant time was posted as Chief Medical Officer, Plant Hospital Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, has filed the present application for quashing the order dated 11.10.1993, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi taking cognizance under Sections 500, 504 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"). 3. The complainant opposite-party claiming himself to be a saint, filed a petition of complaint on 17.7.1993 alleging that he is a saint and he has large number of followers throughout the country and he is serving the mankind, socially morally and spiritually and he used to visit places like Hospitals, Temples to teach people humanity and remove hatred and also cure sick people by his special spiritual knowledge and he used to visit the plant hospital of the Heavy Engineering Corporation and used to cure patients with his spiritual knowledge. One patient B. Ram admitted in the hospital was cured by the complainant. Due to all these, the accused petitioner got panicked and on 7.10.1992 when he was in the hospital the petitioner ordered the complainant to leave the hospital premises and abused him in filthy language, when the complainant refused to leave the hospital he ordered the other accused to throw him out. Thereafter the other accused persons forcibly removed him from the hospital premises. 4. On receipt of the complaint, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi called for a report from the police as to whether any case has been instituted or not with regard to the occurrence. The report was not sent by the police and thereafter the CJM transferred the case to the Court of a Magistrate after examining the complainant on solemn affirmation. By order dated 11.10.1993. the learned Magistrate found prima facie case for issuance of process against the petitioner and other for the offence under Sections 500. 504 and 323 of the IPC. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that prosecution is an abuse of the process of the Court. Even if the allegation made in the complaint petition are accept on it face value, no case under any of the sections as mentioned above is made out against the petitioner. 6. 504 and 323 of the IPC. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that prosecution is an abuse of the process of the Court. Even if the allegation made in the complaint petition are accept on it face value, no case under any of the sections as mentioned above is made out against the petitioner. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the complainant-opposite party, on the other hand contended that the materials on the record show that the complainant has gone in the hospital on the basis of pass given by the authority and was looking after the patient and in that situation the accused persons have no right to forcibly remove the complainant from the hospital and as such, the actions of the accused persons constitute the offence for which they have been charged. 7. At the initial stage the prosecution can be quashed oniy when the allegations as it stand without adding anything make out a prima facie case, the prosecution can be also quashed if the same is actuated by the malafide or suffers from any legal defect. 8. According to the allegations in the complaint petition, he had cured one patient in the hospital which annoyed the accused petitioner and when he did not leave the hospital he was forcibly removed by other accused persons. In his examination on solemn affirmation he has stated that he used to visit the hospital and cure the patients and also made prayer for their welfare and because of that reason the accused persons were annoyed. 9. The admitted fact is that the petitioner was posted as Chief Medical Officer in the Hospital at the relevant time and as such he was the incharge of the hospital. 10. After having gone through the aforesaid allegation and taking into consideration the material on the records it is evident that the complainant has no authority to visit the hospital and treat the (sic) as he was not associated with the hospital in any capacity. In such a situation if he was asked to leave the hospital then he should have left the same as he has no right to remain there. On refusal he was removed from the same. The allegation do not constitute offences as alleged. There appears to be no mens rea to commit the crime. In such a situation if he was asked to leave the hospital then he should have left the same as he has no right to remain there. On refusal he was removed from the same. The allegation do not constitute offences as alleged. There appears to be no mens rea to commit the crime. Taking into consideration the entire facts I am of the view that allowing the prosecution to continue will amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. 11. Accordingly the prosecution of the petitioner is quashed. In the result this application is allowed.