JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. In all the three aforesaid petitions order dated 5.10.2002 passed by Sri Vishnu Deo Rai, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1118 (C) of 2002 is under challenge and as such all the three petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 5.10.2002 passed by Sri Vishnu Deo Rai, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences under Section 448, 323, 380 and 429 of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 1118 (C) of 2002. 3. Short fact of the case is that opposite party No. 2 Praveen Anand filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna which was registered as Complaint Case No. 1118 (C) of 2002. In the complaint petition it was disclosed that the complainant was running Swadeshi Chetana Samiti and he was President of the said Society. It was alleged that on 13.6.2002 in the evening, while the complainant along with other executive members was holding a meeting of the Society, four named accused persons which includes all the three petitioners and other twenty- twenty five unknown accused persons forcibly entered into the premises and started to abuse the complainant and other members of the Society. The complainant and others were assaulted by the accused persons. At the time of occurrence the accused persons were threatening the complainant not to initiate any agitation restraining the members of the society from using foreign goods. It was further alleged that in the occurrence the accused persons took away a briefcase from the office and other relevant papers. In the briefcase about two thousand rupees was kept for expenses of the Society. On the aforesaid allegation, the complaint was filed and after conducting enquiry the learned Magistrate by the impugned order has taken cognizance for offences as stated above. 4. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, all the three petitioners by filing separate petitions approached this Court. 5. The aforesaid petitions were admitted on different dates and while admitting the case it was directed that further proceeding in Complaint Case No. 1118 (C) of 2002 pending in the court below shall remain stayed against the petitioners. 4. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, all the three petitioners by filing separate petitions approached this Court. 5. The aforesaid petitions were admitted on different dates and while admitting the case it was directed that further proceeding in Complaint Case No. 1118 (C) of 2002 pending in the court below shall remain stayed against the petitioners. The order of stay is still continuing. 6. Mr. Kumar Manish, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in all the three cases, has submitted that initiation of proceeding by opposite party No. 2 was malicious and only on the ground of malicious prosecution, the order of cognizance and entire proceedings in complaint Case No. 1118(C) of 2002 is liable to be set aside. Learned Counsel for the petitioners while arguing the case has referred to annexure-2 to the petition which is a photo copy of the certified copy of the first information report in Patliputra P.S. Case No. 64 of 2002 and has submitted that the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 2501 of 2003 was functioning as Security Supervisor, Property Guards in the Factory of Coca cola situated in Industrial Area, Patliputra, Patna. On 12.5.2002, early in the morning at about 5.40 A.M., two unknown accused persons riding over a motorcycle had lobbed four bombs in the Factory premises and out of four three bombs were exploded and thereafter, while he arrived at the place of occurrence, he noticed that 15-20 Pumphlets of Swadeshi Chetna Samiti were lying there. On the basis of written report of petitioner Mani Bhushan Prasad, a first information report vide Patliputra P.S. Case No. 64 of 2002 was registered on 12.5.2002 for the offence under Sections 3/5 of the Explosive Substance Act against unknown accused persons. In the said case, a seizure list was also prepared by the police where live bomb and other materials were found. In the said seizure list, the petitioner Atul Jha in Cr. Misc. No. 35445 of 2002 and Prakash @ Sri Prakash Srivastava in Cr. Misc. No. 35444 of 2002 put their signature as seizure witnesses. Learned Counsel has referred to Annexure-2 to the petition, which is a certified copy of the first information report along with copy of the seizure memo from pages 17-22 of the petition. It was further submitted that during the investigation, it was found that opposite party No. 2-complainant was involved in the crime. Learned Counsel has referred to Annexure-2 to the petition, which is a certified copy of the first information report along with copy of the seizure memo from pages 17-22 of the petition. It was further submitted that during the investigation, it was found that opposite party No. 2-complainant was involved in the crime. A raid was conducted in a premises at Daroga Rai Path, Patna where two persons were arrested. However, this petitioner fled away at the time of search. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also referred to annexure-6 in Cr. Misc. No. 35444 of 2002 which is a photo copy of the certified copy of the charge sheet No. 131 dated 3.9.2002 which was submitted in Patliputra P.S. Case No. 64 of 2002. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that even in the charge sheet involvement of opposite party No. 2 was noticed by the police but since he was not apprehended charge sheet in respect of accused Ranjeet Kumar Singh and Sanjeev Kumar was submitted and further investigation in respect of complainant was kept pending. It was also indicated in the charge sheet that the matter was kept pending for arresting the complainant. Learned Counsel has also referred to annexure-7 to the petition whereby the District Magistrate, Patna had accorded sanction for prosecuting the accused persons. In the sanction order also it was referred that the complainant was involved in the crime. 7. Mr. Kumar Manish, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that since in the case which was lodged by petitioner Mani Bhushan Prasad in which Prakash @ Sri Prakash Srivastava and Atul Jha @ Atul Chandra Jha were seizure witnesses, the present complaint was filed with an oblique motive. It was further submitted that the present complaint was filed with a view to dissuade the petitioner to purse the case i.e. Patliputra P.S. Case No. 64 of 2002. Accordingly, it has been prayed to quash the order of cognizance and the entire proceeding so far as the petitioners are concerned. 8. Despite the fact that opposite party No. 2 has entered his appearance through counsel, repeatedly on behalf of opposite party No. 2 none has appeared. Yesterday i.e. 26.8.2010 also on call of the case none had appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 whereas Mr. Kumar Mansih learned Counsel for the petitioners was present. 8. Despite the fact that opposite party No. 2 has entered his appearance through counsel, repeatedly on behalf of opposite party No. 2 none has appeared. Yesterday i.e. 26.8.2010 also on call of the case none had appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 whereas Mr. Kumar Mansih learned Counsel for the petitioners was present. With a view to give a chance, yesterday the case was adjourned for a day with an indication that if on the next date tomorrow none appears on behalf of opposite party No. 2, the case shall be decided on the basis of materials available on record of the case. Accordingly, in absence of any representation of opposite party No. 2, this Court heard Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 9. Besides hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I have also perused the first information report and charge-sheet in Patliputra P.S. Case No. 64 of 2002 on the basis of which it is evident that the complainant had initially taken steps for committing occurrence by lobbying bombs in the factory premises of Coca cola Limited where petitioner Mani Bhushan Prasad in Cr. Misc. No. 2501 of 2003 was functioning as Security Supervisor, Property Guards and he became informant in the case and Prakash @ Sri Prakash Srivastava in Cr. Misc. No. 35444 of 2002 and Atul Jha @ Atul Chandra Jha in Cr. Misc. No. 35445 of 2002 became seizure witnesses. In the said case after investigation the involvement of the complainant surfaced and, as such, it appears that opposite party No. 2 has filed the present complaint against the petitioners with an oblique motive. The court is satisfied that the present complaint was filed maliciously and with oblique motive and, as such, it is a fit case for interfering with the order of cognizance. 10. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 5.10.2002 passed by Sri Vishnu Deo Rai, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1118C of 2002 is hereby set aside and all the three petitions are allowed.