Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code), the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal prosecution launched against them, including the order taking cognizance dated 30th May, 1995, by which processes have been issued against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 452, 380 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case no.68 of 1994. 3. The short facts giving rise to this application are as follows: -The opposite party No.1 (complainant)filed a petition of complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial magistrate, Kodarma, on 22-3-1994 stating therein, inter alia, that on 5th March, 1994 at about 4.30 p. m. while he alongwith his brothers Sanjay Kumar and Kamal kishore Prasad were sitting in his medical shop, the accused persons (the petitioners)trespassed into his shop and asked the complainant why he is not repaying the bank loan and when it was humbly replied by the complainant that the same shall be paid, the accused persons (petitioners)became angry and abused the complainant and his brothers and threatened them. Again on 10th March, 1994, at about 10 a. m. while the complainant was in his medical shop, accused petitioner No.3 b. N. came there and purchased medicines worth Rs.100/- and when he demanded the money for the medicines, it infuriated accused petitioner B. N. Singh and he accordingly threatened the complainant and on the same day in the evening at about 5 p. m. all the accused persons came to his shop on a jeep, where accused petitioner nos.3 and 4 were armed with guns and they trespassed into his shop and started abusing them and one of the accused persons dragged the complainant to his jeep and asked him to board the jeep. Accused petitioner No.2 took away cash box from the shop containing a sum of Rs.500/-. On hulla several persons had collected near the shop, as a sequel of that the accused petitioners retreated with cash box. 4. On the basis of the complaint petition, the learned Additional Chief Judicial magistrate enquired into the matter under section 202 of the Code and on the basis of the statement of the complainant and its witnesses on solemn affirmation, took cognizance of the offence and issued proceses against the petitioners. 5. 4. On the basis of the complaint petition, the learned Additional Chief Judicial magistrate enquired into the matter under section 202 of the Code and on the basis of the statement of the complainant and its witnesses on solemn affirmation, took cognizance of the offence and issued proceses against the petitioners. 5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are employees of the Bank and admittedly the complainant has taken a loan from the Bank and when they had gone to ask him to repay the loan, they have falsely been implicated in this case. 6. Mr. Kameshwar Prasad, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, further submitted that before the alleged date of commission as alleged by the complainant, a First Information report was lodged by petitioner No.2 chandramauli Choubey against the complainant and his brothers on 16-3-1994 under Sections 341, 323 and 379 of the Indian penal Code and just after the institution of the case, the present complaint was filed on 23-3-1994 with a mala fide intention and to harass and humiliate the petitioners. Learned Counsel further sub-mitted that a charge-sheet has already been submitted against the complainant and his brothers upon the First Information report lodged by petitioner No.2. 7. Mr. Kameshwar Prasad further contended that even at the face of the complaint petition it can safely be said that it has been lodged against the petitioners with mala fide intention and the allegations levelled against the petitioners appear to be absurd and improbable. Learned Counsel further contended that the petitioners are the employees of the state Bank of India and are not expected to indulge in such activities, rather they had gone to demand the money, which was given to the complainant as a loan, in their bona fide. 8. Mr. Prasad further contended that the alleged occurrence had taken place on 5th and 10th March, 1994, whereas the present complaint was filed on 22nd march, 1994. In support of the propositions, mr. Prasad has relied upon the case of State of Haryana and others V/s. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 . So far as the delay part is concerned, the learned Counsel has relied upon the case of Thulia Kali V/s. The State of Tamil Nadu, air 1973 SC 501 . 9. In support of the propositions, mr. Prasad has relied upon the case of State of Haryana and others V/s. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 . So far as the delay part is concerned, the learned Counsel has relied upon the case of Thulia Kali V/s. The State of Tamil Nadu, air 1973 SC 501 . 9. On the contrary, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-opposite party No.1 contended that there are sufficient facts in the complaint petition to constitute an offence against the accused persons. Learned counsel further submitted that this Court in exercise of its power under Sec.482 of the Code has to see the averments made in the complaint and cannot assume the duty of the trial Court. Learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that in any view of the matter and irrespective of the position of the petitioners, the averments made in the complaint are sufficient to constitute an offence against the accused persons and, in that view of the matter, the order taking cognizance requires no interference by this Court. 10. I have perused the complaint petition and have heard the Counsel for the parties. 11. It is manifestly clear from the complaint petition itself that the alleged occurrence had taken place on 5th and 10th March, 1994, whereas the complaint was filed on 22nd March, 1994. It is further manifest from the complaint petition that the complainant had not even tried to lodge a case before the police immediately after the occurrence or had tried to lodge the complaint itself just after the alleged occurrence. It appears from the complaint petition itself that the accused persons and the complainant are residents of Kodarma town itself, where the Court of the additional Judicial Magistrate functions. 12. It is true that this Court even in exercise of its power under Sec.482 of the Code cannot assume the duty of the trial Court and is not at liberty to look into the other materials for arriving at a conclusion, but at the same time it is the primary function of the Court in exercise of its power under Sec.482 of the Code to see without adding or abstracting anything in the complaint as to whether the allegations set forth in the complaint are inherently improbable and absurd. 13. 13. I have already noticed above that the accused persons are the employees of the State Bank of India, Kodarma Branch and admittedly the complainant had taken a loan from the Bank. Even at the face of the averments made in the complaint petition, it appears to me that there is exaggeration and the acts committed by the petitioners was not expected. The story set forth in the complaint petition is so absurd that no prudent person shall come to a conclusion that an offence has been committed by the accused persons. There is nothing on record or in the complaint petition to show the bona fide of the complaint that he was prevented by sufficient cause is not lodging the first information report or filing the complaint just after the alleged date of occurrence. The only explanation which has been given in the complaint is that a complaint had been made against the petitioners by the complainant to the highest authority of the bank and the complainant was waiting for the reply of the authorities concerned of the Bank. This explanation leads me nowhere. If the petitioners action was so aggressive, the complainant could have immediately lodged the case either before the police or before the Court of competent jurisdiction. In my opinion, the complaint in this case has been lodged after as abnormal delay. 14. From reading of the complaint as a whole and having considered the reveal contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the prosecution has been launched against the petitioners actuated by mala fide intentions. For the reasons aforementioned, in my opinion, the case at hand comes under category Nos.5 and 7 of the categories enumerated in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (supra ). 15. The prosecution launched against the petitioners appears to be tempted with mala fide intention, since it was not lodged just after the occurrence and as it was lodged after an abnormal delay, the ratio laid down in the case of Thulia Kali V/s. The State of Tamil Nadu, (supra) also applies aptly in the facts and circumstances of this case.16. For the reasons aforementioned, I allow this application and quash the entire criminal prosecution launched against the petitioners, including that of order taking cognizance against the petitioners dated 30th May, 1995, in Complaint Case No.68 of 1994. Application Allowed.