Judgment Rekha Kumari, J. 1. This is an application filed u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the order dated 15-10-2001 passed by Shri D. M. Pandey, J. M., Patna in complaint Case No. 1785(C) of 2000 by which he has issued summons against the petitioner and his father and two brothers (who are accused Nos. 1 to 4 in the complaint petition) for standing trial under Sections 341, 323, 380, 427, 448 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 . 2. Heard. 3. The prosecution case, in nut-shell, is that the grand father of the complainant (opposite party No. 2) had purchased seven decimal of land out of 14 decimal ofland of plot No. 290 on 25-4 1949. Subsequently the petitioner and his father purchased the said plot on 14-8-1994. The petitioner and his father then filed title suit for declaration of their title and recovery of possession. The suit was dismissed. They filed appeal in the High Court which was allowed in part and their right title was declared over 1 katha 4 dhoors and 16 dhurkis of land of the plot. They filed Execution case No. 1 of 1997 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge V. Patna. He (complainant) had no knowledge of the execution case. In the execution case, they committed forgery in the execution petition by inserting wrong boundary beyond the decree with ulterior motive of grabbing his land and house. On the date of occurrence i.e. 22-10-2000 all the accused persons (15 in number) including the Advocate Commissioner and Inspector of Police of (sic) Phulwari Sharif Police Station in collusion with each other came and the accused Advocate Commissioner directed him to vacate his show room and godown. The complainant informed him that it was his exclusive property and the disputed property was towards south east which was vacant but he did not listen and directed the other accused persons to throw out the articles of the room and godown and they threw away his articles. On the direction of the accused Advocate Commissioner (accused No. 15), the Inspector of Police arrested him and confined in police lock up and he (complainant) was dispossessed and the father of the petitioner was put in possession. After release from police custody on 23-10-2000 he learnt that the accused Nos. On the direction of the accused Advocate Commissioner (accused No. 15), the Inspector of Police arrested him and confined in police lock up and he (complainant) was dispossessed and the father of the petitioner was put in possession. After release from police custody on 23-10-2000 he learnt that the accused Nos. 1 to 12 had taken away his articles causing him a loss of Rs. 9,48,000.00 . His case also is that accused Nos. 5 to 8 had abused him and dismantled the articles of his office and godown. 4. It appears that after filing of the complaint, the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and then four witnesses were examined u/s. 202, Cr. P.C. and the learned Magistrate after considering the statements passed the impugned order. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations in the complaint case are out and out false and the case is vexzatious and mala fide on account of land dispute. He further submitted that the complainant had filed case against 15 persons but the learned Magistrate found prima facie case against four persons only which is also indicative of the fact that there is no truth in the allegations. He further submitted that though cognizance has been taken against the petitioner and three others under Secs. 341, 323, 380, 427, 448 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, there is absolutely no allegation of wrongful restraint, hurt, mischief and insult against any of the accused and so the offence u/s. 448, Indian Penal Code, 1860 is not made out. The complaint petition itself shows that the Advocate Commissioner in execution of the decree had given delivery of possession to him. Hence the offence is also not made out against any of the accused who have been summoned. He further submitted that so far the offence u/s. 380, Indian Penal Code, 1860 is concerned, the report of the Advocate Commissioner would show that the judgment debtor himself had removed those articles and, therefore, there was no question of theft of articles of the accused persons. 6. On perusing the complaint petition and considering the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I also find that the prosecution is not bona fide and has been brought about only to wreck personal vengeance on account of delivery of possession effected against the complainant in execution of the decree. 6. On perusing the complaint petition and considering the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I also find that the prosecution is not bona fide and has been brought about only to wreck personal vengeance on account of delivery of possession effected against the complainant in execution of the decree. Therefore, in my opinion, to secure the onus of justice, the impugned order should be set aside. 7. Accordingly, this application for quashing is allowed and the impugned order dated 15-10-2001 is hereby set aside.