Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This petition under Section 482. Cr PC has been filed for quashing the order of cognizance dated 19th August. 1996 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Bermo at Tenughat in Complaint Case No. 164 of 1996 under Sections 341,500,379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Summons were also issued against the petitioner by the impugned order. 2. The petitioner happens to be the Branch Manager of Bank of India at present posted at Swang Colliery Branch. P.S.Gomia. district-Bokaro, while the opposite party happens to be the senior lawyer of Bokaro. 3. The facts of the case arc that one Smt. Prabhawati Devi had some claims against the Bank regarding the deposit made by her late husband. Prakash Yadav who had three accounts in the Bank of India. In respect of those accounts. Prabhawati Devi made claim before the Bank of India and to its Branch Manager on the death of her husband. She was advised by the bank authorities that Succession Certificate would be necessary. On such advise. Prabhawati Devi met the opposite party and disclosed about the directions being given by the bank authorities. Then the opposite party advised her that she being a poor lady, it would not be advisable to her to go for Succession Certificate rather she would get the amount from the Branch Manager on giving some security or guarantee. Finding the client Smt. Prabhawati Devi, a poor helpless lady the complainant benevolently accompanied her to the Branch Manager i.e. the petitioner and requested him to release the amount in favour of Smt. Prabhawati Devi. Then the Branch Manager allegedly insisted upon the complainant-opposite party to be a guarantor and when he refused then there were hot exchange of words and during the course of that, according to the complainant, he was being wrongfully restrained and that the petitioner used abusive words not only against the complainant but also against the lawyers in profession in general. Hence, the present complaint was filed which was marked as Anncxure-1. 4. After taking statement of the complainant, the learned Magistrate was satisfied and took cognizance under Section 341/500/379/504 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. Hence this quashing petition. 5. According to Mr. Hence, the present complaint was filed which was marked as Anncxure-1. 4. After taking statement of the complainant, the learned Magistrate was satisfied and took cognizance under Section 341/500/379/504 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. Hence this quashing petition. 5. According to Mr. Kameshwar Prasad, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the whole incident as stated in the complaint petition is an absurd one and is in total contradiction to what the Prabhawati Devi had stated in her representation before the higher authorities of the Bank of India. 6. Representation of the said Prabhawati Devi has been annexed with supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. On going through the complaint petition and the representation of Prabhawati Devi. I do not find any vital contradiction. That there was a quarrel and abusive words were hurled towards the complainant by the Bank Manager petitioner has been stated by Prabhawati Devi in her representation also. But. she has not stated the actual words which had been used by the Bank Manager while the same has been included in the complaint petition. So. I do not find the same to he a contradiction. 7. Second submission is that Prabhawati Devi has not been cited as a witness in the complaint petition. Only because Prabhawati Devi had not been made a witness, the whole complaint petitioner cannot be said to be bad and abuse of the process of Court. 8. Another submission of Mr. Kameshwar Prasad is that there is no Banking Rules of release of any deposit amount on the death of the depositor to his legal heirs without the Succession Certificate and as such there was no scope for the Bank Manager to ask the complainant to be a guarantor in release of the deposited amount and as such the whole story is an impossibility and absurd and if an absurd story has been brought then the criminal proceedings is required to be considered as abuse of the process of the Court. In this connection, Mr. Kameshwar Prasad has cited two judgments of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 4520 of 1994 (R) and Cr. Misc. No. 4220/92 (R). 9. The facts and circumstances of both the cases are totally different from the present case. In Cr. Misc. No. 4220 of 1992 (R). In this connection, Mr. Kameshwar Prasad has cited two judgments of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 4520 of 1994 (R) and Cr. Misc. No. 4220/92 (R). 9. The facts and circumstances of both the cases are totally different from the present case. In Cr. Misc. No. 4220 of 1992 (R). the complainant himself was a loanee from the Bank and there was every possibility of inference that with oblique motive, false and frivolous complaint have been filed against the Manager of the Bank. In Cr. Misc. No. 4520 of 1994 (R). the complainant was a self styled Saint and he entered into the Plant Hospital of Heavy Engineering Corporation and it was the case that as he was curing the patient, the accused person became panicy and as such the hospital authorities who were the accused persons had hurried him with abusive and filthy words and ordered for throw him out from the H.E.C. Hospital. The doctor who was accused in the case and cognizance was also taken against him came up before this Court for quashing and the same was quashed holding the story is absurd and filed with oblique motive and hence the cognizance was quashed. 10. Here, in the present case, the facts are totally different. Both the complainant and the petitioner are respectable persons. If there was no scope of release of the deposits by the Bank Manager, and if such release was insisted by the complainant, there was no occasion of using abusive words or calling the names by lawyer as a class is definitely against all norms. Hence. I do not find the complaint petition to be absurd one. rather the representation filed by Prabhawati Devi before the higher authorities of the Bank confirms the incidence. Hence. I do not find that the processes being issued against the petitioner is an abuse of the process of the Court. 11. Last submission of Mr. Kameshwar Prasad is that the offence is of very petty nature and Section 95 of the IPC should come into act in this field and the matter should be resolved by quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. 12. Mr. 11. Last submission of Mr. Kameshwar Prasad is that the offence is of very petty nature and Section 95 of the IPC should come into act in this field and the matter should be resolved by quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. 12. Mr. Ramavatar Sharma, appearing on behalf of the complainant first took the objection that this quashing petition is bad and not legally maintainable as it is in violation of Rule 69 of the Patna High Court Rules, as when once cognizance has been taken then the State of Bihar is a party must in a petition under Section 482, Cr PC. 13. These are technical objections being raised. I do not want to hold this petition to be not maintainable because of this technical defect alone, when I have already discussed the materials on merit. 14. Regarding Section 95 of the IPC, Mr. R. Sharma has referred to case of Mrs. Rupan Bajaj v. Mr. K.P.S. Gill, AIR 1996 SC 309 . The facts and circumstances are different. However, when abusive words included the class of the lawyers as a whole, I do not think that the matter should be taken lightly, but on the same breath, when it has been stated in the Bar that Tenughat Bar Association has taken a Resolution that no lawyer should appear for and on behalf of the Bank Manager i.e. the petitioner, the same is deprecated. Lawyers must not forget their ethics. They might have sympathy for their brother colleague but by that alone, one respectable person who happens to be the Bank Manager should not be sent to peril of not being represented by a lawyer. 15. However, as per discussions above. I do not find force in this petition. Let the petitioner appear before the trying Magistrate in connection with the above mentioned case and get bail. But, when two respectable persons are involved in the matter, it would be advisable that they should meet together and there should be an attempt from the side of Magistrate concerned also to mutualise the matter on the principle of Forget & Forgive. The petition is dismissed accordingly