Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the Union of India, the State of Bihar as well as the respondent no.8. 2. The petitioner has been named as accused no.6 in Complaint Case No. 1751(C) of 2005. The respondent no.8 is the complainant of the case which has been instituted for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. In complaint case cognizance has been taken by the S.D.J.M. Patna by order dated 20.7.2005 3. The petitioner has filed this application for quashing the part of the order dated 20.7.2005, passed by the S.D.J.M. Patna in complaint Case No. 1751 (C) of 2005 by which cognizance has been taken against him and summon has been issued. Further prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the local police to complete the investigation in S.K.Puri RS. Case No. 82 of 2005. 4. Facts of the case are that on 22.6.2005 the Complaint Case No. 1751 of 2005 was instituted from which it revealed that one letter of appointment was issued by the then Deputy Director, Regional Office, Patna for appointment of one Md. Ashraf Ali on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Science) although his name was not there in the panel recommended for appointment. Md. Ashraf Ali joined on the post on 1.7.1996 at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (Bikram), Patna. When the said illegal appointment of Ashraf Ali came to the knowledge of officials of the, Regional Office at Patna, the matter was referred to the Headquarter of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, New Delhi. The headquarter of Navodaya Vidyalaya at New Delhi started sending various directions from time to time in the matter of said, illegal appointment and the office at the Regional Office, Patna acted on the direction/guidelines issued from the Headquarter. However, inspite of the orders of the headquarter, the officials at Patna Regional Office managed the orders in favour of Md. Ashraf Ali and instead of taking action for his termination, he was awarded honour of Guru Ratna and his name was also placed in the seniority list. The issue of illegal appointment of Ashraf Ali was only being discussed in file since 1998 but he was allowed to continue in his service with all financial benefits. This caused huge financial loss approximately amounting to Rs ten lacs and more. Guru Ratna was also awarded to this illegal appointee. The issue of illegal appointment of Ashraf Ali was only being discussed in file since 1998 but he was allowed to continue in his service with all financial benefits. This caused huge financial loss approximately amounting to Rs ten lacs and more. Guru Ratna was also awarded to this illegal appointee. The officials named as accused in the complaint petition managed his confirmation and brought the issue in the light only finding no other way for saving their skin. They manipulated to involve Daya Shankar Singh, the retired Deputy Director under whose fake and forged signature the order of appointment of Md. Ashraf Ali was issued. The accused persons in collusion and conspiracy with each other have committed the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The S.D.J.M. Patna took cognizance in the matter which is under challenge in the present application. 5. The petitioners case is that in the entire complaint petition no allegation has been made against the petitioner. His role is very limited in this matter as the appointment of Ashraf Ali was made in the year 1995-96 and at that time he was not holding any office at Patna. He came to the State of Bihar for the first time in December, 2004 on his promotion to the post of Deputy Director and superannuated from the service of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti on 31.7.2005. On 10.12.2004 the petitioner joined as Deputy Director and received letter no. 439/2002 dated 15.2.2004 sent by Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Headquarter, New Delhi. By this letter the petitioner was asked to furnish detail information regarding appointment of said Ashraf Ali. On 6.1.2005 vide letter no. 26770 a detailed report about the appointment of said Ashraf Ali was sent by the petitioner to the Headquarter at New Delhi. The headquarter vide letter dated 7.2.2005 directed the petitioner to issue a show cause notice to the said Ashraf Ali. The petitioner sought guidelines from the Headquarter by sending a letter dated 25.2.2005. By letter dated 6.5.2005 the Headquarter sent the guidelines directing the petitioner to terminate the services of said Ashraf Ali and to lodge F.I.R. against the concerned officials who had issued the letter of appointment to Ashraf Ali. The petitioner sought guidelines from the Headquarter by sending a letter dated 25.2.2005. By letter dated 6.5.2005 the Headquarter sent the guidelines directing the petitioner to terminate the services of said Ashraf Ali and to lodge F.I.R. against the concerned officials who had issued the letter of appointment to Ashraf Ali. In compliance of the direction the petitioner wrote a letter dated 11.5.2005 to the Incharge, S.K.Puri Police Station to lodge an F.I.R. against one Daya Shankar Singh, the then Deputy Director, Navodaya Vidayaya Samiti, Patna for issuance of illegal appointment letter to the accused Ashraf Ali and accordingly S.K.Puri PS. Case No. 82 of 2005 was registered on 11.5.2005 itself under Sections 420, 467, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. As directed by the headquarter the petitioner issued an office order dated 12.5.2005 terminating the services of said Ashraf Ali after holding his appointment as illegal. 6. From these facts it is clear that the role played by the petitioner since the date of his joining and till the date of his superannuation did not indicate petitioners involvement in the illegal appointment of Ashraf Ali or allowing him to continue on his illegal appointed post. The name of this petitioner has been included in the list of accused with malafide intention just to put pressure on the petitioner as he has lodged S.K.Puri P.S. Case No. 82 of 2005 naming then, then Deputy Director Daya Shankar Singh as sole accused in the case. Daya Shankar Singh has been named as witness in the complaint case and the complainant who has no business with the working of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samittee has instituted this complaint case at the instance of the Daya Shankar Singh. 7. The ground on which the petitioner has sought for quashing of the cognizance as well as the order of cognizance is that before, taking cognizance the court below did not even care to consider that against the petitioner no allegation has been attributed either in the complaint petition or the S.A.The order of cognizance has been passed in a mechanical manner which is manifest from the fact that the court below has issued summons to a dead person after taking cognizance though it has been mentioned in the complaint petition itself regarding the death of the person concerned. 8. 8. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.8 stating that the petitioner after joining as Deputy Director in the establishment of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samittee, the regional office Patna paid salary to Ashraf Ali though he was fully aware with regard to illegal and forged appointment. The petitioner also managed payment of salary to Ashraf Ali till the date of his termination on orders of the headquarter by creating fear among the other officials. This show that the petitioner was also in collusion and conspiracy with other accused persons as such he is one of the conspirators and cognizance has rightly been taken against him. 9. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in order to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of the court, the order taking cognizance must be quashed as the allegations made in the complain even if taken it on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence to make out a case against this petitioner. The material in the complaint petition and the statement of the complainant on S.A. do not disclose any offence against the petitioner justifying the order of cognizance. The uncontroverted allegations in the complaint and the statement of complainant on S.A. when do not make out a case against the petitioner, the continuance of criminal proceeding against the petitioner cannot be termed other than abuse of the process of court which calls for exercise of extra ordinary, inherent power of this Court. It has also been submitted that the complaint case has been instituted with malafide intention and in case of any proceeding instituted leisurely with ulterior motive for reckoning vengeance on the accused, is an appropriate case where extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court should be exercised. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal and ors A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 604 in which guidelines have been issued for quashing of F.I.R. of cognizable offence by the High Court. 10. Counsel appearing for respondent no.8 has submitted that the petitioner has also played his role in the commission of offence as he has paid the salary to Ashraf Ali since the date of his joining and till Ashraf Ali was terminated on the direction of the headquarter. 10. Counsel appearing for respondent no.8 has submitted that the petitioner has also played his role in the commission of offence as he has paid the salary to Ashraf Ali since the date of his joining and till Ashraf Ali was terminated on the direction of the headquarter. In reply to this the petitioners counsel has submitted that neither in the complaint petition, nor in the statement of complainant on S.A. any such allegation is made against the petitioner. It has also been stated by the petitioners counsel that the Deputy Director of Regional Office is not Drawing and Disbursing Officer. The Drawing and Disbursing Officer is the Principal of the concerned Navodaya Vidyalaya as such there is no substance in the submission made by the counsel that the petitioner has participated in conspiracy by making payment of salary to the illegal appointee. 11. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Secretariat, Patna stating that the investigation of S.K.Puri P.S. Case no. 82 of 2005 has already been concluded and the case has been found true against F.I.R. named accused Daya Shankar Singh and Ashraf Ali. The Officer-in-charge has been directed to arrest the accused persons. 12. Considering the submissions made by the parties and on perusal of the complaint petition I find that uncontroverted allegations made in the complaint petition even taking it at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence so far it relates to the present petitioner. Admittedly illegal letter of appointment was issued in favour of Ashraf Ali in the year 1995 at that time the petitioner was not there. He joined Patna office in the year 2004 and only after his joining show cause notice was issued to Ashraf Ali and letter of termination was also issued by this petitioner. These acts of the petitioner do not constitute any offence as alleged in the complaint. The S.D.J.M. Patna has taken cognizance against the petitioner without considering the allegations in the judicial manner. In fact the order of cognizance against this petitioner has been passed in a mechanical manner which certainly will allow the abuse of the process of the court. This is a fit case in which proceeding should not be allowed to continue. The S.D.J.M. Patna has taken cognizance against the petitioner without considering the allegations in the judicial manner. In fact the order of cognizance against this petitioner has been passed in a mechanical manner which certainly will allow the abuse of the process of the court. This is a fit case in which proceeding should not be allowed to continue. Facts of this case is fully comes within the guidelines of A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 604 to secure the ends of justice, the order dated 20.7.2005 passed by the S.D.J.M. in Complaint Case No. 1751 (C) of 2005 as against this petitioner is quashed and this application is allowed.