JUDGEMENT Akhilesh Chandra, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2, the complainant. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of order dated 30th September, 2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, in Complaint Case No. 669 of 2003 (T.R. No. 840 of 2003) taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 166, 504, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Finding no case for other offences, as prayed for, under Sections 161, 389 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The Opposite party No. 2 had filed the complaint bearing No. 669 of 2003 on 26th June, 2003 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya. The relevant facts are as such. The complainant had applied for loan worth rupees ten lacs from the bank of which petitioner was Manager. Application was sent earlier on 16th November, 2002 through registered post. Reminder was given subsequently on 03rd January, 2003. Various correspondences were made between the parties including lawyers notice, reply thereto but prayer for loan of the complainant was turned down on the grounds mentioned in reply. By sending another notice the complainant questioned the grounds taken for rejection. Reply was also given. It indicates that prayer of complainant was turned down on 15th February, 2003 and subsequently vide letter dated 07th May, 2003 another reply was also given confirming the earlier decision. The complainant has come up with a case that on 27th May, 2003 he had visited the Branch of the Bank, met the Manager, the petitioner, who demanded some illegal gratification to sanction the loan which was denied. During that course some utterance of abuse, assault and obtaining signatures of complainant on certain papers relating to loan took place. 4. In spite of the above occurrence, as alleged, taking place, besides signatures of the complainant were obtained on different papers regarding loan on 27th May, 2003, the complainant opposite party No. 2, as mentioned in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the complaint petition, did nothing rather he waited for some changes taking place in the attitude of the petitioner. Further, he was apprehensive misuse of the signatures on the papers said to have been obtained on 27th May, 2003. 5. Further, he was apprehensive misuse of the signatures on the papers said to have been obtained on 27th May, 2003. 5. Before the Court below in enquiry some witnesses were examined and cognizance for the offences as stated was taken giving rise to present application. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance upon the decisions in the cases of Pepsi Foods Ltd and Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. (1998) 5 S.C.C. 749 ; and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 604; submitted that the complainant came out with the case on flimsy grounds only to take revenge against the petitioner who found the prayer of the complainant seeking loan not tenable. Moreover, the allegations levelled in the light of the admitted facts and circumstances, stated above, there is nothing but absurd when the application of loan has already been turned down. There was no occasion to visit the place like complainant or demand by the petitioner as alleged. Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 tried to contradict the submissions but fairly conceded that to rebut the annexures showing that various correspondence between the parties he has nothing to place nor any counter affidavit has been filed or he has any instructions from the complainant. However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor tried to submit that the petitioner instead of knocking doors of this Court had a remedy under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for hearing at the point of charge and if the trial Court finds no material, may discharge it, but instead has come to this Court. 7. No doubt, at the time of hearing on the point of charge the petitioner may have placed the points before the Court below but at the same time it is also to be considered that normally at the time of hearing on the point of charge no documents produced on behalf of the accused persons are considered unless there is some exceptional circumstances. Moreover, if, prima facie, assertions levelled in the complaint petition are sufficient to indicate that they are not fit to be proceeded against, jurisdiction of this Court can be invoked in exercise of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also. 8. Moreover, if, prima facie, assertions levelled in the complaint petition are sufficient to indicate that they are not fit to be proceeded against, jurisdiction of this Court can be invoked in exercise of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also. 8. As stated above, while narrating the admitted facts and circumstances it has been found that entire complaint petition deals with the application of the complainant seeking loan and disposal of the matter on certain grounds. The complainant in the complaint petition, Annexure-1 at the category of date and time of occurrence has mentioned as many as eight items and if they are read with the annexures specially dated 16th November, 2002 of the complainant renewing the prayer of loan made through letter dated 25th June, 2002 and the prayer being turned down on 15th February, 2003 vide Annexure-4 mainly on the ground that the work place of the complainant does not fall within the jurisdiction of Branch of the Bank from where loan is applied for besides it is not found viable. Thereafter lawyers notice as Annexure-5 dated 12th April, 2003 etc. coupled with Annexure-7 intimating earlier decision of rejection of the claim application etc. clearly indicates that everything as regard to loan application submitted by the complainant had already been finished much before the alleged date of occurrence, that is, 27th May, 2003. Since there was nothing remained to do by the Bank authorities, allegation regarding demand of some amount on refusal abuse, assault and obtaining signatures on certain papers etc. appears imaginary one just for the purposes of filing the complaint, and put undue pressure upon the authority refusing to oblige the complainant and denying to sanction loan. 9. The law does not permit any one to initiate any proceeding in such a manner with ulterior motive without any substance. From the facts, stated above, it appears that instant case is squarely covered under the criteria described by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lals case (supra). 10. Accordingly, this application stands allowed. The impugned order is hereby quashed.