JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition is directed against the order dated 13.9.93 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sumerpur whereby he took cognisance against the petitioner and others for the offence under sections 147, 451, 323/149, 342, 365 read with Section 120-B IPC. 2. Mr. Surana, learned counsel for the petitioner, pointing out that the petitioner was not present at the time of alleged occurrence, contended that he has been unnecessarily roped in the case and it is abuse of the process of the court to allow the proceedings to continue against him. 3. Mr. Beniwal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, pointing out that the petitioner had issued `Safina' on 11.8.91 to arrest the five persons including Narain Lal, complainant in a simple case of 147, 354, 323 and 447 IPC, contended that by this it should be inferred that the petitioner had entered into a criminal conspiracy with the first informant of that case. They also pointed out that Shri Shanwar Lal, H.C. had produced the respondent no. 2 and four other accused before Mohan Singh, which shows that Mohan Singh had conspired with the first informant. 4. I have considered the above arguments. The only material against the petitioner is that he had issued `Safina' on 11.8.91 directing Bhanwar Lal, H.C. to produce Narain Lal and four others before him on that date. The case registered at the Police Station against Narain Lal and four others was under Sections 147, 354, 323, and 447 IPC. This case was registered on the report lodged by Pukhraj, brother of Kastu Bai, in which It was stated that on 8.8.91 at about 7 p.m. Narain Lal and four others went to Kastu Bai at her Bhagat Ki Kothi residence and asked her to pay Rs. 30,000/- which were due against her husband who had died 7-8 years back, and on showing ignorance of the debt by Kastu Bai, the accused the enraged and started abusing her Kastu Bai requested the accused to accompany her to Pukhraj, her brother, and when they came to first informant's shop some conversation took place and then five accused bodily lifted Kastu Bai and put her in a Jeep and at that time clothes of Kastu Bai got torn and her modesty was out raged. 5. 5. It is obvious that the petitioner had directed the Head Constable to produce the five accused persons in connection with the case of cognisable nature registered against them. On the basis of issuance of `Safina' in the circumstances that there was a case registered against Narain Lal and others, it cannot be Inferred that the petitioner had conspired with the first informant and other accused to commit an offence on 11.8.91. True it is, that all the offences against the accused were of bailable nature and the accused named in the `Safina' were entitled to be released on bail but that does not mean that the petitioner could not call the accused for interrogation. The facts on record clearly show that immediately after the accused were produced before the petitioner, they were ordered to be released on bail. It has not come on record that the petitioner had said anything to the accused when they were produced before him. 6. It has come in the statement of Narain Lal that Bhanwar Lal had asked them to pay Rs. 20,000/- while on way to Jodhpur and that Narain Lal had arranged the amount and he paid the same to Bhanwar Lal. It has further come in his statement that at the time Bhanwar Lal produced him before the petitioner, he saw that signal was given by Bhanwar Lal to the petitioner and thereafter he was released on bail. Even taking the statement of Narain Lal to be correct, it cannot be inferred that the petitioner had entered into criminal to conspiracy with Pukhraj and others to implicate Narain Lal in a false case. There was a cognisable case registered against respondent Narain Lal and therefore, it is obvious that whatever was done by the petitioner, it was done in relation to his official duty. 7. The learned Magistrate in his order has not stated a word on what material he inferred that there was criminal conspiracy between the petitioner and the first informant. The impugned order is, therefore, not sustainable. 8. Consequently, the petition succeeds. The order dated 13.9.93 taking cognisance qua the petitioner is set aside and the proceedings against the petitioner are hereby quashed.Petition allowed.. *******