JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. Petitioner wants quashing of the order dated 1.6.9.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Munger in Complaint Case No. 774 of 2005 by virtue of which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under sections 323, 379, 504, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The background to the present complaint case is that on 28.8.2005 when he was doing measurement of the land for handing over possession to purchaser or one Nilam Devi all of a sudden accused no. 1 and 2 along with three to four unknown other persons variously armed restrained the complainant from making wall and when the complainant objected he was assaulted, some money and wrist watch was snatched. It is further alleged in the complaint that the present petitioner who happens to be an Anchal Karmchari of Munger Block has mischievously given a report contrary to the interest of the petitioner and was part and parcel of the said offence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had only performed his official duty and had submitted a report based on the official record available with the revenue authority. Reading of the complaint shows that there was no allegation of participation in the assault or any other commission of the snatching. But despite the said fact cognizance has been taken under various sections of the Penal Code where prima facie the offence under the said sections has not been made out against the petitioner. 5. Bare reading of the complaint and the statement made therein along with the section for which cognizance has been taken the Court comes to a considered opinion that prima facie no case is made out against the petitioner under the noted sections. Further the petitioner only furnished the report based on the record and he was performing his official duty and that by itself is no offence. 6. In view of the above, the trial of the petitioner in the case under said sections of the Penal Code is abuse of the process of the Court. Petitioner has successfully made but a case for inference in the impugned which cannot sustained against him. The impugned order dated 16.9.2005 in so far as it relates to the petitioner stands quashed. 7. This application is allowed.