Judgment PRABHAT KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. This is an appli­cation under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("the Code" in short) preferred by Mahendra Sharma @ Mahendra Kumar and Manindra Sharma @ Dr. Manindra Kumar for quashing the entire prosecution against them in relation to Konch P.S. Case No. 27 of 1996, appertaining to G.R. No. 786 of 1996, as also order dated 18.12.1996 by which Sri U.K. Upadhyaya, Judical Magistrate, 1st Class at Gaya had taken cognizance of offence under Sections 448, 353, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code on the challan submitted by the police. 2. One line of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the F.I.R. was against unknown and in course of investigation no evidence did come on the case diary which could be adduced before the Court as legal evidence which implicated the petitioners. After going through the case diary learned Additional Public Prosecutor agrees to that. 3. Facts in short are that Sri Sudhir Kumar Tiwary, Anchal Adhikari, Konch Block had filed the FIR before police stating therein that on 19.4.1996 when he was working with other staff at his residence-cum-office, two persons on motor cycles came and threatened the informant that they had amputed hands of the many officers like him and would kill him. They also got ready to assault, as a result of which the official work of the informant was obstructed. 4. After investigation the police submitted charge-sheet. It appears that earlier this Court had called the case diary in order to appreciate the grounds taken by the petitioners. This Court has gone through the case diary. From the case diary it appears that the informant had reiterated his allegation against unknown in his further statement also and other witnesses, namely, Muneshwar Prasad Singh and Sadhu Saran Singh who are said to have been working with the informant also supported the allegation but did not say anything about identification of the miscreants. Some . witnesses such as Sri Balram Prasad gave hearsay statement but later also without naming the petitioners. The Investigating Officer, as per case diary, appeared to have met the informant later also but he told that he had not come across the miscreants again. 5. Some . witnesses such as Sri Balram Prasad gave hearsay statement but later also without naming the petitioners. The Investigating Officer, as per case diary, appeared to have met the informant later also but he told that he had not come across the miscreants again. 5. An inkling about the involvement of the petitioners came in the supervision note of the Circle Inspector noted in para 33 of the case diary who noted that in course of investigation it appeared that two motor cyclesnumbers given in the supervision note, were used by the miscreants and that the miscreants were sons pf a retired District Animal Husbandry Officer including one Nagendra Sharma and another was a professor. He gave direction to make investigation in that regard. However, it has not came as to from where the Circle Inspector had got the numbers of motor cycle or the identity of the miscreants. Paragraph 33 of the case diary further shows that one of the numbers related to a Scooter and so far other number was concerned, no motor cycle with that number was registered. 6. Paragraph 47 of the case diary notes that the present petitioners appeared at the police station and gave proof of their having been released on bail also giving document in support of their case. Paragraph 50 of the case diary shows that petitioner Manindra Kumar claimed to be innocent and did not tell anything about the occurrence, but this paragraph further states that (he said that) at the place of occurrence the motor cycle was his where he had gone for a certificate and in connection with that there had been some hot exchange of words. This is the evidence on the record and on the case diary on the basis of which charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance of offence was taken. 7. Learned counsel has rightly submitted that the statement in para 50 of the case diary as to what one of the petitioners said to the police is inadmissible evidence and, apart from that, there is no material in the case diary which could even indicate involvement of the petitioners in the commission of alleged offence. 8. 7. Learned counsel has rightly submitted that the statement in para 50 of the case diary as to what one of the petitioners said to the police is inadmissible evidence and, apart from that, there is no material in the case diary which could even indicate involvement of the petitioners in the commission of alleged offence. 8. It may be mentioned here that in para 54 of the Case diary the Investigating Officer has noted that when the Investigating Officer approached the Informant for T.I. Parade of the suspected accused, he was made to understand that since the informant was an administrative Officer he did not want to take any risk for future. Obviously, the entire case diary contains no evidence whatsoever against the petitioners which could be adduced in the Court in order to prove their guilt. In such circumstance, allowing the prosecution to continue would only result m abuse of process of law and wastage of time of the Court. 9. This being so this application is allowed and criminal prosecution in connection with Konch P.S. Case No. 27 of 1996 (G.R. No. 786 of 1996) (Trial No. 111 of 1997) and impugned order dated 18.12.1996 are hereby quashed.