Judgment 1. Through this application, the petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 557(C) of 2006 including the order dated 2.6.2007 passed therein by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai whereby he has taken cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case as culled out from the complaint petition itself is that a housing loan of Rs. 4,30,000/- was taken by the complainant from the Begusarai Branch of Allahabad Bank and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,000/-were paid as installments for the months of April and July, 2005. It is further alleged that on 27.3.2006 when the complainant went to deposit the installment of loan at the Begusarai Branch, he found a large crowd gathered there and the petitioner herein who was known to him from before called him and gave out that since that was the last week of March and there was a huge rush in the Branch, he requested the complainant to handover to him the installment and assured him that the same would be deposited after the rush was over and the receipt would be given on the following day. It is said that at the assurance given by the petitioner the complainant gave Rs. 15,000/- to the petitioner for depositing in his loan account and when on 28.3.2006 he demanded the receipt from the petitioner he was given to understand that the deposit could not be made and requested him to come after a day and thereafter whenever the complainant asked for the receipt, the petitioner avoided to give the same. It is further alleged that on 5.4.2006 at about 12 noon when the complainant demanded the receipt from the petitioner he allegedly became furious, started abusing him and pushed him out of the office catching hold of his neck. However, the matter was subterfuged by the intervention of the witnesses named in the complaint. The grievance of the complainant is that the petitioner had committed breach of trust and had also lowered his social prestige. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it would be apparent from perusal of the deposition of the witnesses examined at the inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. that the story of the complainant handing over Rs. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it would be apparent from perusal of the deposition of the witnesses examined at the inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. that the story of the complainant handing over Rs. 15,000/- to the petitioner for deposit in the Bank was out and out malicious in order to villify the petitioner who in the capacity of Branch Manager used to remind the complainant to pay the installments of loan in time. In this connection it was submitted that the fact that the complainant had not been paying the installments regularly and in time would be apparent from the complaint petition itself which indicates that having taken the loan of Rs. 4,30,000/- in the year 2005 he had only paid Rs. 10,000/- in April, 2005 and Rs. 5,000/- in July, 2005 and thereafter it was only in March, 2006, i.e., after seven months that he had claimed to have gone to the Bank to deposit Rs. 15,000/-. The statement of account of the complainant has been appended as Annexure-3 to the application which goes to reveal that the complainant was irregular in payment of the installments and had not even paid the interest portion of the loan amount which had accumulated and as a result thereof the total outstanding on 31.7.2007 was Rs. 4,93,876/-. 4. It was also sought to be submitted that ornamental allegations had been attributed to the petitioner by the complainant to save his own skin and even if the story as propounded by the complainant in the complaint petition is to be believed then not even offences under Sections 323/504 I.P.C. appear to have been made out and the story being highly improbable was difficult to digest for no Branch Manager of any Bank would raise his hands to assault any customer or even resort to abuses. The learned counsel for the petitioner further sought to point out that the falsity of the case would be apparent from the fact that the complainant himself had admitted in writing on 19.5.2006 that he had filed the instant complaint under misnomer and he would withdraw the same but nevertheless he never cared to withdraw the complaint. A copy of the said letter has been appended as Annexure-4 to the application. 5. The learned counsel for OP. A copy of the said letter has been appended as Annexure-4 to the application. 5. The learned counsel for OP. No. 2 has not been able to defend the impugned order satisfactorily and he has no answer to the letter (Annexure-4) allegedly written by him. 6. In the circumstances, it would only be trite to believe the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner which finds support from Annexure-3, the statement of the loan account of the complainant and Annexure-4, the letter dated 19.5.2006, written by the complainant himself. It is difficult to understand how and why notwithstanding having written the letter on 19.5.2006, the complainant chose to depose in contrary terms on 16.4.2007. 7. Due regard being had to the facts and the circumstances of the case, the prosecution of the petitioner appears to be an abuse of the process of the court which cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby quashed and the application is allowed.