JUDGEMENT Shiva Kirti Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the O. P. No.2. 2. All the seven petitioners are accused in complaint case No.437/99, Tr. No.842/99. They are aggrieved by the order of cognizance dated 10-8-99 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Aurangabad for offences under sections 341, 379, 147 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners are admittedly clerks or superior officers who were at the relevant time posted and working in the office of Agricultural Officer, Aurangabad. It is also admitted that complainants father had superannuated from a class-III post from the same very office on 30-4-1999 whereas the alleged occurrence took place at 10 AM on 12-6-1999 on a working day inside the Agricultural Officers office. As per allegations in the complaint petition the complainants father as well as complainant had several times visited the concerned office during working hours in respect of pension and other retiral benefits due to complainants father but the accused persons kept on postponing the matter. The complainant has claimed that he represented an informant in relation to Anti Corruption Case No.21/1998 (State of Bihar Vs. Srikant Mandal, District agriculture Officer, Aurangabad and Ors) and, therefore, in order to assist investigation officer, a Dy S. P. of Vigilance Department, he had gone to the place of occurrence during office hours at 10 AM on 12-6-1999. Before the arrival of the Dy S. P he was asked by the accused persons to sit in the Chambers of District Agriculture Officer and thereafter accused No.1 (petitioner No.1 herein) allegedly reprimanded him that his habits were not good and he was in the habit of fighting with the officials and thereafter all the accused persons tore his coat and removed band from his collar as well as chain of gold and Rs.613/- from the coat pocket and all these articles were kept in the possession of all the seven accused persons. The motive alleged was that most of the accused persons were accused from before in Anti Corruption case and, therefore, they were angry with the complainant. The motive alleged was that most of the accused persons were accused from before in Anti Corruption case and, therefore, they were angry with the complainant. Allegedly police refused to accept the case and, therefore, complaint was filed on 14-6-1999 alleging offences of wrongful restraint under section 341 Indian Penal Code, theft of money and golden chain, under section 379 Indian Penal Code, rioting by unlawful assembly under section 147 Indian Penal Code and defamation under section 500 Indian Penal Code. 3. On behalf of the petitioners, it has been submitted that the allegations are not only false but also absurd and no court should have believed such allegations against a large number of persons including the gazetted officers such as District Agriculture Officer, his subordinate officers and clerks working in the same office. It has further been submitted that falsity and absurdity of the allegations are evident that even removal of money and chain is alleged against all the persons and that all of seven had kept the stolen articles. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that allegations made in the complaint petition have been supported by two witnesses examined at the stage of enquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and at this stage the Court is required only to see whether a prima facie case has been made out or not. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that one of the witnesses is father of the complainant and other is again a retired employee against whom a case was pending for embezzlement of an amount of Rs.1,35,000/-. 6. It is well settled in law, as submitted by learned Senior counsel for the State, Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad that on the threshold of a criminal case interference under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be made only in rarest of rare cases. Interference should be made only when the Court is satisfied that the pending proceeding will be an abuse of the process of the court and interest of justice requires interference. 7. Having kept the aforesaid principles in mind and the law indicated by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others. 7. Having kept the aforesaid principles in mind and the law indicated by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others. AIR 1998 129 SC it is found that the case alleged in the complaint petition when examined with care discloses allegations in such circumstances which appear to be absurd. From the allegations in the complaint petition, it is evident that complainant was visiting the office since last several dates so that pension and other retiral benefits due to his father, who had recently retired, may be paid expeditiously. He has expressed that he was dissatisfied with the reply of the officials and their delaying tactics. In such circumstances, general and omnibus allegations of the nature already noticed above fall in a category which can be safely treated to be in the category of cases where allegations do not inspire any confidence. It would not be in the interest of justice to allow such prosecution to continue. In the case of M/s Pepsi Foods (Supra) the Apex court has highlighted in paragraph 28 that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The further observation made by the Apex Court in paragraph 30 to the effect that the High Court should not have adopted such a rigid approach leading to miscarriage of justice appears to be clearly applicable to the facts of this case. 8. After scrutinizing the nature of allegations, the entire circumstances and the nature of evidence brought before the Magistrate to support the allegations, this court has no hesitation in coming to the opinion that this court must interfere in the matter and should not permit the criminal prosecution in question to continue against the seven petitioners. Accordingly, this application is allowed and impugned order of cognizance is quashed.