JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners for both the cases and learned counsel for the State. Although, the name of counsel for the complainant, O.P.No.2 appears in the daily cause list, nobody appears to argue the matter on behalf of the complainant. 2. Petitioner, Tapas Kumar Bhattacharjee and petitioner, Dusyant Kumar Nayak, at the relevant time were posted as Clerk and Branch Manager respectively in the Banaso branch of State Bank of India presently under Jharkhand. An FIR of Bishnugarh P.S. Case No.87 of 1993 has been brought on record to show that on 13.9.1993 a dacoity took place in the said branch of State Bank of India in which three unknown persons looted cash, bank drafts, security forms, gift cheques etc leading to lodging of FIR by Branch Manager, Dusyant Kumar Nayak. Subsequently, the present case was lodged at Muzaffarpur by the complainant, O.P. No.2 on 19.3.1997 i.e. after about 3 and ½ years of the occurrence of dacoity in which he has made accused one Anil Kumar along with petitioners on the allegation that he was given a bank draft for a business transaction for an amount of Rs. 49,500/- issued by SBI, Banaso Branch, Hazaribagh and subsequently it was found when the said draft was encashed in favour of one company, M/s Prem & Company that the draft form was from the lot of draft forms allegedly looted from Banaso Branch, State Bank of India in 1993. 3. On behalf of petitioners it has been submitted that the complaint in question has been lodged by the complainant either to save his own skin or to save the people associated with M/s Prem & Company, Irode and the learned Magistrate should not have proceeded to take cognizance in a mechanical way and should not have issued summons to the petitioners without getting the matter thoroughly investigated. 4. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and perused the order of cognizance dated 25.3.1998 it is found that in a case of present nature the allegations made by the complainant against the petitioners who were employees of the State Bank of India in which draft from in question had been looted in the year 1992, no cognizance should have been taken without getting the matter properly investigated. The proper course, in view of the nature of allegations should have been to refer the compliant case to the police for instituting an FIR and to investigate keeping in mind the outcome of earlier case being Bishnugarh P.S. Case No.87 of 1993 and other relevant materials. 5. In that view of the matter the order of cognizance dated 25.3.1998 and the subsequent orders summoning the petitioners as accused are quashed. It is made clear that this order will not be treated as a comment by this Court on merits of the complaint case. Now, the learned Magistrate must proceed in the matter afresh in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations made above. 6. This quashing application is allowed to the aforesaid extent.