JUDGMENT Anjana Prakash, J : - Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the State. 2. The Petitioner seeks quashing of the entire proceeding including the order dated 23.11.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa, in Complaint Case No. 780 C of 2007 by which he has taken cognizance under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The case of the Complainant upon which the First Information Report was instituted is that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste and was a 4th Grade employee in Kosi Command Area Development Authority, Saharsa, where the present Petitioner was the Managing Director and living alone. The Petitioner allegedly had an evil eye on the Complainant and had attempted to ensnare her in his clutches and hence transferred her husband to which she protested. At this, the Petitioner tried to act in an indecent manner on account of which she filed a Complaint before the Officer of the Department Patna as well as Saharsa but no action was taken. On 18.12.2006 at about 8.00 P.M. the Petitioner called her to his house and stated that nothing had gone wrong and, therefore, she should sign some documents. When she refused, he closed the door of the room and outraged her modesty. Her blouse was torn in this transaction. Suddenly, her husband and son came, and, thereafter, she left for her home. 4. The present complaint was converted to a Police Case bearing Sadar Town P.S. Case No. 84 of 2007. After due investigation, final report was submitted in the matter on 30.3.2007 holding that the allegations were false. In the meanwhile, the Opposite Party No. 2 filed a Protest Petition once again reiterating the same things as she had earlier stated in the First Information Report. It is note worthy that in the Complaint, she mentioned only two witnesses i.e. Khikhar Mehtar and Pankaj Kumar, who are her husband and son respectively. She did not name the person who had been sent to call her by the Petitioner as a witness. 5. During enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P.C., Pankaj Kumar, the Complainant’s son, was examined as CW-1. He stated that the Driver of the Petitioner had come to call his mother to his house. He supported the allegations. She did not name the person who had been sent to call her by the Petitioner as a witness. 5. During enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P.C., Pankaj Kumar, the Complainant’s son, was examined as CW-1. He stated that the Driver of the Petitioner had come to call his mother to his house. He supported the allegations. However, in a reply to a Court question, he stated that his mother who was on the post of Sweeper, had been discharged by the Petitioner before the occurrence. CW-2 is Khikhar Mehtar, the husband of the Complainant. He replied to the Court question that the Petitioner had directed him to vacate the Government Quarter on his transfer. He also admitted that the Driver of the Petitioner had not been mentioned as a witness and that the Complainant was 53 years of age. Vauta lal Sah is CW-3 who is merely hear say whereas Ravindra Narayan Singh is CW-4 who admitted in his reply to the Court question that a Departmental Proceeding had been initiated against him in which he had been suspended. He also stated that the Petitioner had got the quarter vacated of the Complainant on the date of the occurrence. CW-5 is Saryug Raut, who claims to be the Driver. He also confirmed that the Complainant’s hut had been demolished before the occurrence on the direction of the Petitioner. 6. From the documents filed herein, it appears that on 22.12.2005, the Petitioner had made a Complaint with regard to several illegal occupants who had constructed huts within the residential premises of the Managing Director which had been causing great inconvenience to the Occupants of the house as also lowering the prestige of the incumbents. An enquiry was done in the matter by the officials at Saharsa and it appears that the hut of the Complainant was sought to be demolished by the authorities. The Complainant also filed a Complaint before the Chief Minister, stating all these facts and mentioning that how she had illegally been ousted from her house. 7. It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that in the background facts of the case evidently the Complaint is false. 8. On the other hand, the counsel for the Complainant submits that the allegation made in the Complaint is correct and the Petitioner should be prosecuted. 9. 7. It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that in the background facts of the case evidently the Complaint is false. 8. On the other hand, the counsel for the Complainant submits that the allegation made in the Complaint is correct and the Petitioner should be prosecuted. 9. On going through the record of the case, there are some notable features in the Complaint which attract attention and cast a suspicion on the prosecution case. Firstly that the Complainant has not mentioned as to who had been sent by the Petitioner to call her in the Complaint but subsequently, during enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P.C., suddenly one Saryug Rout appears in support of the Complaint. Secondly, she mentions that the Petitioner had forcibly attempted to make her sign on some papers whereafter he closed the door and outraged her modesty. There appears to be some connection between the papers which the Complainant has mentioned in her Complaint and the transfer orders documents of which were allegedly affixed on her door when she was not found in her hut on 9.10.2006 and her son refused to receive, which fact was mentioned in her Complaint to Chief Minister. 10. As admitted by the witnesses in their statements recorded under Section 202 Cr. P.C., it appears that the Complainant was sought to be ousted from the illegal hut which had been constructed within the residential premises of the Managing Director, Kosi Command Area Development, Authority, Saharsa, and had been ordered to vacate on transfer and finally when the hut was demolished, the present Complaint was lodged on 20.12.2006 for an occurrence which allegedly took place on 18.12.2006. There is no doubt that the Complainant and her witnesses have consistently insisted that the Petitioner had outraged her modesty but since the points mentioned above raise a reasonable suspicion with regard to the veracity of the Complaint, this Court would think it wise not to rely on the allegations. More so, because of the documentary evidence which has been brought on record by the Petitioner not only from his end but also from other officials suggest that some action had sought to be taken against the Complainant around the date when the occurrence is said to have allegedly taken place. 11. More so, because of the documentary evidence which has been brought on record by the Petitioner not only from his end but also from other officials suggest that some action had sought to be taken against the Complainant around the date when the occurrence is said to have allegedly taken place. 11. In view of the aforesaid considerations, this application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order dated 23.11.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa, in Complaint Case No. 780 C of 2007 is hereby quashed.