Judgment 1. Heard. 2. This application under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 21.4.2004 passed by Shri H.N.Tewary, Additional Sessions Judge-IXth, Muzaffarpur in Cr. Revision No. 163 of 2002 as well as order of cognizance dated 10.7.2004 passed by C.J.M., Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No. 184 of 2002 thereby and thereunder on the direction of the revisional court, he has taken cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 406 and 420 of the I.P.C. 3. The facts leading to this application are as follows: The Bihar Financial Corporation, Patna on 28.12.2001 invited tender through daily newspaper for sale of a hotel named M/s Hotel Midway situated at N.H. 30 near Bhagwanpur Chowk, Muzaffarpur. In pursuant to the above advertisement, the opposite party no. 2 also submitted his tender on 16.1.2002 in prescribed form alongwith bankers cheque of Rs. 50,000.00 to petitioner no. 2 in presence of petitioner no. 1. At that time, petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were posted at Muzaffarpur in Branch Office of Bihar State Financial Corporation and petitioner no. 3 was posted in head office of B.S.F.C, Patna. Tenders were to be opened on 19.1.2002. 4. It has been alleged by the opposite party no. 2 in complaint petition that on 17.1.2002 at 4.00 P.M. petitioner nos. 1 and 2 approached the opposite party in his house and demanded bribe of Rs. 5 lacs for accepting his tender. The opposite party no. 2 refused upon which the petitioners threatened and told that his tender paper would not be sent to headquarter unless their demands were accepted and security money of Rs. 50,000.00 would also be misappropriated by them. 5. The further allegation is that on 19.1.2002 the opposite party no. 2 went to the head office and enquired into about his tender paper and then came to know that the same has not been sent by the Muzaffarpur Branch Office. The opposite party no. 2 returned to Muzaffarpur to enquire from the petitioner nos. 1 and 2, who told that no action would be taken upon his tender unless bribe is paid to petitioner no. 3. 6. Thereafter, the opposite party no. 2 on 21.1.2002 lodged complaint case in the Court of C.J.M., Muzaffarpur which was enquired into under Sec.202 Cr.P.C. ultimately, it was dismissed vide order dated 10.5.2002 by the Court of Shri K.B. Pandey, J.M., Muzaffarpur. The opposite party no. 3. 6. Thereafter, the opposite party no. 2 on 21.1.2002 lodged complaint case in the Court of C.J.M., Muzaffarpur which was enquired into under Sec.202 Cr.P.C. ultimately, it was dismissed vide order dated 10.5.2002 by the Court of Shri K.B. Pandey, J.M., Muzaffarpur. The opposite party no. 2 preferred revision against the above order which was heard and decided by Shri H.N. Tewary, Additional Sessions Judge without impleading the petitioners as party and set aside the order of dismissal and remanded back to the lower court for further enquiry vide order dated 21.4.2004. In view of the direction given in the revision, the learned C.J.M. vide impugned order has taken cognizance against the petitioners under above sections of the I.P.C. 7. It further appears from the record that apart from above criminal case, the opposite party no. 2 also moved the Hon ble Court in writ jurisdiction bearing C.W.J.C. No. 2876 of 2002 which was decided on 5.3.2002 vide Annexure-2 and the Bihar State Financial Corporation was directed to accept fresh tender paper of the opposite party no. 2 without security money of Rs. 50,000/-. It was further directed that the tender shall be opened in presence of all concerned after communicating its date to the opposite party no. 2. The opposite party no. 2 on 13.3.2002 submitted fresh tender paper which was forwarded to head office by the petitioner no. 2 on the same day. Annexure-5 would go to show that the tender papers were opened on 26.3.2002 but he did not succeed to purchase the hotel in question. One Shyam Bihari succeeded to purchase the hotel on much higher price than the price offered by the opposite party no. 2. 8. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that criminal prosecution of the petitioners is abuse of process of the court. The prosecution is out and out malicious and filed with oblique and ulterior motive to get his tender accepted under pressure. It is further submitted that the real fact is that on 17.1.2002, the opposite party no. 2 visited the office of Branch Manager and pressurised him to change the offer amount mentioned in his tender paper but when he did not succeed he forcibly took away his tender paper and in spite of repeated written request he did not return his original tender paper or submit copy of the tender paper. 2 visited the office of Branch Manager and pressurised him to change the offer amount mentioned in his tender paper but when he did not succeed he forcibly took away his tender paper and in spite of repeated written request he did not return his original tender paper or submit copy of the tender paper. Ultimately, complaint case was also lodged by the petitioner no. 2 against the opposite party no. 2. Lastly, it is submitted that on the basis of the order of the Hon ble Court in C.W.J.C. the opposite party no. 2 was allowed to participate in negotiation of price of hotel but did not succeed hence now, there is no justification to continue criminal prosecution of the petitioners. 9. On careful consideration of the facts as mentioned above as well as submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is quite apparent that no case of cheating or breach of trust has been made out. No money of the opposite party no. 2 was misappropriated by the petitioners. He was allowed to participate in negotiation for sale of hotel without further depositing the security amount. It further appears that the opposite party no. 2 filed this case not to obtain conviction of the petitioners but to pressurise them in order to get the hotel in question on meagre price. Apparently, this prosecution is malicious and has been filed with oblique and ulterior motive. It amounts to misuse of process of the court. 10. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances, this application is allowed and the impugned orders in question are hereby quashed.