ORDER 1. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 19.12.2012, passed by the then Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in Complaint Case No. 228 of 2012 whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 325 and 307 of Indian Penal Code has been taken against these two petitioners and others. 2. Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, it be stated that the complainant while was getting a work done on 31.1.2012 for widening the road, five unknown persons came over there and started assaulting him brutally as a result of which the complainant sustained injuries. He was sent to the hospital. Meanwhile, one Ganga Prasad Trivedi lodged a written complaint before the concerned police station. On the basis of which first information report of Chandwa P.S. Case No. 6 of 2012 was registered against five persons namely, Birju Oraon, Dinesh Oraon, Chandradeo Oraon, Naresh Oraon and Subre Oraon. The matter was investigated upon by the police who after investigation did not find the allegation to be true against aforesaid five persons named in the FIR and hence the police submitted final form which was accepted by the court. 3. Thereupon, a protest petition was filed on 5.11.2012 which was treated to be a complaint. Subsequently, one more complaint which, according to counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2, was supplementary to earlier complaint, was filed on 23.11.2012. After holding inquiry, the court took cognizance of the offence against these petitioners against whom the case had never been registered by the police. 4. Being aggrieved with that order, this application has been filed. 5. Mr. 2, was supplementary to earlier complaint, was filed on 23.11.2012. After holding inquiry, the court took cognizance of the offence against these petitioners against whom the case had never been registered by the police. 4. Being aggrieved with that order, this application has been filed. 5. Mr. J.S. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that admittedly these petitioners had never been made accused in the first information report nor was named as accused as the persons who did commit any overt act in the protest petition, which was filed on behalf of the complainant but on a complaint, which was filed on 23.11.2012, allegation was made that at the instigation of these petitioners, aforesaid five persons had assaulted the complainant which in the facts and circumstances can be said to have been given to wreak vengeance against these petitioners, as the complainant had abused these petitioners and the higher officials of the Company on telephone which was communicated by these petitioners to the Head Quarters and then the Head Quarters took decision to remove the complainant from the services. That decision was taken on 2.11.2012 and was communicated to the complainant vide letter dated 3.11.2012 which was received by him. Thereafter the complainant lodged a fresh complaint on 23.11.2012 wherein allegation was made that at the instigation of these petitioners, five persons had assaulted him and, therefore, in such situation, the order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed as it is manifestly attended with mala fide. 6. Learned counsel in support of his submission has referred to a decision in a case of Deo Lakhan Paswan Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. { 2012 (1) JLJR 206 (SC)}. 7. As against this, Mr. M.K. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2, submits that the complainant had brutally been assaulted by five persons as a result of which he became badly injured and then was removed to the hospital where he made statement to the police but the police did not lodge the case on his version rather lodged the case on the basis of the statement made by other person whereby five persons were named. Thereupon, on submission of final form, a protest petition was filed on 5.11.2012 which was registered as complaint case and in continuation of that complaint, a fresh complaint was made on 23.11.2012 and the court after holding inquiry took cognizance of the offence against these petitioners and others and under this situation, order taking cognizance never warrants to be quashed. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that in the first information report, the names of these petitioners are not there and even in the protest petition, filed on behalf of the complainant, it has never been alleged that at the instigation of these petitioners, five persons had assaulted the complainant but later on, specific statement was made in the complaint filed on 23.11.2012 alleging therein that at the instance of these petitioners, the complainant was assaulted. This allegation seems to be actuated with malice, as before that the complainant had had a talk on telephone with the petitioner no. 2 wherein he had abused the officials of the Company which was communicated to the Head Quarters and the Head Quarters took decision to remove the complainant from the services. On taking such decision when notice was issued on 3.11.2012, it was received by the complainant and thereupon one more application said to be supplementary complaint was filed on 23.11.2012. 9. In such situation, where the complaint is actuated with malice, the order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed in view of the decision rendered in a case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others [1992 Supp(1) SCC 335] wherein their Lordships have laid down the categories where the criminal proceeding can be quashed. One of the categories i.e. Category No. 7 reads as follows: “Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 10. As I have stated above that only when the notice of termination was served upon the complainant, the supplementary complaint was filed on 23.11.2012 and, therefore, without there being any hesitation, it can be said that the allegation made in the complaint is actuated with malice. 11. As I have stated above that only when the notice of termination was served upon the complainant, the supplementary complaint was filed on 23.11.2012 and, therefore, without there being any hesitation, it can be said that the allegation made in the complaint is actuated with malice. 11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 228 of 2012 including the order dated 19.12.2012 taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 325 and 307 of Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed so far these two petitioners are concerned. 12. In the result, this application is allowed.