JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. In both the cases, order of cognizance dated 19.1.2001 passed in Cataplaint case No. 673C of 2000 by the Judicial Magistrate, Patna is under challenge and as such both the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. By order dated 19.1.2001, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Patna had taken cognizance of offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and summoned the petitioners to face trial in Complaint Case No.673 C of 2000. 3. Short fact of the case is that a complaint vide Complaint Case No. 673C of 2000 was filed on behalf of B Gates Infotech System Integrators Private Limited through its Director Mr. Manoj Kumar Saraf for the offence under Sections 406, 417, 418 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code against five accused persons, namely, (1) Government Polytechnics, Darbhanga, (2) Mr. Bhagwan Singh, Principal, Government Polytechnic, Darbhanga, (3) Gopal Prasad Varma, Ex Principal-in-charge, Government Polytechnic, Darbhanga, (4) N. Mishra, Ex Principal-in-charge, Government Polytechnic, Darbhanga and (5) B. Singh, Incharge, Computer Lab, Government Polytechnic, Darbhanga. It was disclosed in the complaint petition that a contract work was allotted to M/s HCL HP Ltd. by the State Project Implementation Unit of Science and Technology Department, Government of Bihar. Thereafter, the complainant was appointed as Sub Contractor by HCL HP Ltd. for preparing Computer Lab by executing civil and electrical works as per the order of State Project Implementation Unit of Science and Technology Department, Government of Bihar. It has been alleged by the complainant that beyond the specification, the accused persons persuaded the complainant to execute some more work. As per agreement, the payment of excess work was to be made by the local institution. It has been alleged that after completing even additional work, the complainant presented different bills for total amount of Rs.76,388/-. However, the accused persons never made payment to the complainant. On the aforesaid allegation, complaint was filed on 4.5.2000. After filing the complaint, complainant examined two witnesses in support of the complaint, besides being examined on solemn affirmation on oath. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate, by its order dated 19.1.2001, has taken cognizance against Shri Bhagwan Singh, who is petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 34963 of 2002, Nareshwar Mishra and Bhuwneshwer Singh, both petitioners in Cr. Misc. No.19023 of 2003. 4. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate, by its order dated 19.1.2001, has taken cognizance against Shri Bhagwan Singh, who is petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 34963 of 2002, Nareshwar Mishra and Bhuwneshwer Singh, both petitioners in Cr. Misc. No.19023 of 2003. 4. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, aforesaid petitioners approached this Court by filing two petitions as mentioned above. In Cr. Misc. No. 34963 of 2002, while issuing notice to opposite party no.3- complainant, this Court directed that in the meanwhile, further proceeding pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 673 C of 2000 shall remain stayed. Despite valid service of notice, opposite party no.3 preferred not to appear in the case and as such on 27.2.2004, the petition was admitted for hearing and fresh notice was ordered to be issued to opposite party no.3. Cr. Misc. No. 19023 of 2003 was admitted on 3.7.2007 and it was directed that this case will be heard alongwith Cr. Misc. No. 32496S of 2002. Despite the opposite party no.3 had entered appearance through his advocate, at the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that even on the basis of averments made in the complaint petition, no offence is made out. It has been sub-mitted that the learned Magistrate has proceeded with the case without application of mind. In a mechanical manner, order was passed by the learned Magistrate. It has been argued that even the complainant was not authorized by the Government of Bihar to execute the contract work rather contract was entered in between Government of Bihar and M/s HCL HP Ltd. It has further been submitted that from the contents of the complaint petition hardly it can be said that it was a case for payment of outstanding bill. Accordingly, it has been prayed to quash the order of cognizance. 6. I have also heard Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 7. Besides hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and State, I have also perused the materials available on record particularly the complaint petition. Accordingly, it has been prayed to quash the order of cognizance. 6. I have also heard Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 7. Besides hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and State, I have also perused the materials available on record particularly the complaint petition. After going through the averment made in the complaint petition, the court is of the opinion that no offence is made out and the learned Magistrate had completely failed to examine the averment made in the complaint petition and in a mechanical manner has passed the order of cognizance. 8. Accordingly, order of cognizance dated 19.1.2001 passed by Shri D.N. Pandey, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 673C of 2000 as well as entire criminal proceeding is hereby set aside so far as petitioners in both the cases are concerned. Both the petitions are allowed.