JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner No. 1, who was Senior Divisional Manager of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Muzaffarpur and petitioner No. 2, who was Manager (OS) Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as LIC), Divisional Office, Muzaffarpur, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Indian Penal Code, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 12.06.2000 passed by Shri Girish Kumar Dubey, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No. 665 of 2000 (Trial No. 608 of 2000). By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 323, 379, 427 and 504 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that Opposite Party No. 2 who was General Secretary of National Life Insurance Employees Association, Muzaffarpur, Divisional Office, filed a complaint vide Complaint Case No. 665 of 2000 disclosing therein that on oral order of Manager, the office of Employees Union was shifted from old building to new building of the Divisional Office. Subsequently both the petitioners forcibly scattered the articles of the Union of opposite party No. 2 and ransacked the office of opposite party No. 2, abused and assaulted the complainant and, thereafter, forcibly took away the articles of the Union through a jeep. In the said occurrence, Union Office of the informant/complainant had suffered a loss of Rs. 50,000/-. On the aforesaid allegation, the complaint was filed. After conducting the enquiry, the learned Magistrate being satisfied with the materials, took cognizance of the offences under Section 323, 379, 427 and 504 of Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, both the petitioners, by filing the present petition, had approached this Court. On 19.12.2000, this petition was admitted and while admitting the case, this Court directed for issuance of notice to Opposite Party No. 2 and it was further directed that in the meantime, further proceeding in the Court below as against the petitioners shall remain stayed and order of stay is still continuing. 3. In this case, it appears that opposite party No. 2 has entered his appearance through his counsel but at the time of hearing, none has come forward on his behalf to support his stand. On 27.07.2010, when the case was called out, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2. 3. In this case, it appears that opposite party No. 2 has entered his appearance through his counsel but at the time of hearing, none has come forward on his behalf to support his stand. On 27.07.2010, when the case was called out, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2. However, the case was adjourned with an indication that if on the next date, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2, the case shall be decided on the basis of materials available on record. Today again, when the case was called out, none has come forward on behalf of opposite party No. 2. 4. Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners, while challenging the order of cognizance, has confined his argument on the point that the allegation made in the complaint petition appears to be improbable. It was submitted that petitioner No. 1, at the relevant time, was Senior Divisional Manager and petitioner No. 2 was Manager (OS) of LIC. It was submitted that it is not expected that the officers of the rank of the petitioners would have indulged in the occurrence as alleged by the complainant. It was further submitted that the complainant himself has asserted in the complaint petition that the occurrence had taken place on 26.02.2000. However, at a belated stage, the complaint was filed on 11.04.2000 that too without assigning any cogent reason for filing the complaint petition after delay. It was further submitted that nothing has been brought on the record by the complainant as to under which authority he was continuing his union office in the premises of Divisional Office of LIC, Muzaffarpur. It was submitted that it can be said that opposite party No. 2 was himself a trespasser and without any authority he was continuing his union office On the aforesaid grounds, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 12.06.2000. 5. Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioners even in absence of any representation on behalf of opposite party No. 2. Besides hearing learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State, I have also perused the materials available on record. From the complaint petition itself, it appears that the allegation levelled against the petitioners was not probable. Besides hearing learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State, I have also perused the materials available on record. From the complaint petition itself, it appears that the allegation levelled against the petitioners was not probable. The manner in which allegation was levelled was not expected from officers of the rank which the petitioners were holding. Moreover, the complainant had not given any satisfactory explanation regarding filing of the complaint petition after such a delay. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly in view of the fact that the criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No. 665 of 2000 remained pending before this Court for a long time without any progress, this Court is inclined to exercise inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners and, accordingly, the impugned order dated 12.06.2000 passed by Shri Girish Kumar Dubey, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No. 665 of 2000 (Trial No. 608 of 2000) is hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed.