Judgment 1. This application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to quash the order taking cognizance dated 24.2.2006 passed by Sub-divisional Judicial magistrate, Madhubani in Complaint Case C.R. No. 802 of 2005 whereby and thereunder cognizance has been taken under Sections 466, 417 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and others. 2. On perusal of the complaint petitic it appears that O.P. No. 2 was one of th applicants for appointment for post of Siksh Mitra. However, he was not even called fc interview though some of the candidate having lesser qualification than him hav been appointed by the appointment corr mittee. It has further been alleged that a the accused persons including this pet tioner in collusion with each other rejectei his application under a criminal conspirac so that he may not be appointed agains the post of Siksha Mitra. 3. It is submitted on behalf of thi petitioner that the petitioner is a Block Education Extension Officer. He is nowhere involved in the appointment process o Siksha Mitra. The only role played by thi: petitioner was that he on the direction o the District Magistrate conducted enquiry on the allegation petition filed by the Oppo site Party no. 2. This petitioner after enquiry found that the petition of Opposite Party no. 2 was rejected by the committee as his conduct was not found upto mark. Ir support of it petitioner has filed severa documents including annexure-2 which is notification of the State Government with regard to appointment of Siksha Mitra. Annexure-3 is the photo copy of the list ol the candidates prepared by the Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary. Annexure 3/1 is the enquiry report submitted by this petitioner in the matter of allegation petitions filed by the several applicants for the post of Siksha Mitra. 4. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Opposite Part no. 2. Perused the annexures filed by the petitioner. 5. It appears from the documents that this petitioner is nowhere involved in the process of appointment of Siksha Mitra. The only role played by this petitioner was that he made enquiry on the petition filed by several candidates including this opposite party no. 2. This petitioner has been implicated in this case only because no favourable report was submitted in favour of Opposite Party no. The only role played by this petitioner was that he made enquiry on the petition filed by several candidates including this opposite party no. 2. This petitioner has been implicated in this case only because no favourable report was submitted in favour of Opposite Party no. 2 Apparently the prosecution of the petitioner is malacious, vexatious and has been filed to wreck vengeance against him which is misuse of process of the court. 6. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The impugned order of cognizance is quashed but only in respect of the petitioner only.