JUDGMENT By Court.-Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. This application has been filed under Section 482 Cr PC for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case bearing C/1 Case No. 184 of 1999 including the order dated 14.5.1999 whereby and whereunder the then Judicial Magistrate. Jamshedpur took cognizance of the offence under Sections 500 and 295 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. 3. It does appear that the when it was reported that one Manjeet Singh. Son of Sardar Eqbal Singh. has unauthorizedly encroached 1800/- Sq Feet of land an eviction case was initiated before the State Officer. South Eastern Railway at Chakradharpur vide EC Case No. 187 of 1996 in which the State Officer on 23.2.1998 passed an order in terms of Section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act. 1971 declaring and Manjeet Singh. Son of Sardar Eqbal Singh. as unauthorized occupant and thereby he was directed to vacate the said land within 15 days. 4. It further appears that when said Manjeet Singh. Son of Sardar Eqbal Singh. did not vacate the land the Assistant Engineer (1). SE pursuant to the order passed by the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 2290 of 1990 got the encroachment removed by taking help of the District Administration. Thereupon, a complaint was lodged by one Mahendra Singh. who claimed to be the occupant of the said land over which Manjeet Singh was in unauthorized occupation for commission of the offences under Sections 147. 148, 149. 342, 323, 380, 427. 452/34 of Indian Penal Code. 5. However, after inquiry, cognizance of the offences was taken under Sections 500 and 295 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. 6. Being aggrieved with that order this application has been filed. 7. Having heard learned' counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it does appear that when the encroachment was removed from the land. which had been occupied by Manjeet Singh. a complaint was lodged wherein it was alleged that the accused persons assaulted the complainant• and. committed theft of the household articles. However, cognizance of the offences was taken under Sections 500 and 295 of Indian Penal Code after holding that the accused persons did abuse Manjeet Singh and others and they also destroyed photographs of the God. 8. a complaint was lodged wherein it was alleged that the accused persons assaulted the complainant• and. committed theft of the household articles. However, cognizance of the offences was taken under Sections 500 and 295 of Indian Penal Code after holding that the accused persons did abuse Manjeet Singh and others and they also destroyed photographs of the God. 8. It be stated that the allegation of constituting offence under Section 295 of Indian Penal Code is never there in the complaint petition. However, even if the fact relating to destruction of the photographs of the God is accepted to be true that in the face of the allegation made in the complaint never appears to be with intent to insult the religion of the complainant. 9. Further case of defamation also does not appear to have been made out even if it is accepted that the accused persons had hurled abuses as nothing appears from the complaint that abuses were hurled intending to harm reputation or to defame Manjeet Singh or the complainant. 10. Under the circumstances. it can easily be said that the instant prosecution had been lodged maliciously in order to wreck- vengeance and under the situation, if the prosecution is allowed to be continued. it would amount the abuse of the process of this Court. 11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding. including the order dated 14.5.1999 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate., Jamshedpur in C-1 Case No. 184 of 199 under which cognizance of the offence has been taken against these petitioners under Sections 500 and 295 of Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed. 12. In the result, this application is allowed. Application allowed.