JUDGMENT : Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel representing Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation as well as learned AC to AAG-XI for the State. 2. The callousness, arbitrariness and mala fide, on the part of prosecution, are itself evident from the disclosure made under written report and the relevant part of the same is quoted herein below. ^^bl izdkj Jh eukst dqekj lkg ¼izksŒ xk;=h feuh jkbZl fey] dfVgkj½ }kjk fofHkUu frfFk;ksa esa rFkk fofHkUu dz; dsaUnzksa ls dqy 26269&30 DohaVy /kku lacaf/kr dz; dsUnz izHkkjh ds ek/;e ls izkIr fd;k rFkk HkaMkj fuxZekns’k ij viuk izkfIr jlhn fn;k ¼Nk;k izfr layXu½A Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe ds fu;ekuqlkj dqy izkIr /ku 26269&00 DohaVy dk 67 izfr’kr pkoy ¼lhŒ,eŒvkjŒ½ ds fglkc ls dqy 17699&43 DohaVy pkoy ¼lhŒ,eŒvkjŒ½ mUgsa Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe dks lqiqnZ djuk FkkA ijarq bUgksaus fnukad 05&02&2013 rd Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe] dfVgkj dks ek= 12150&00 DohaVy dh pkoy lqiqnZ fd;k gS rFkk vHkh Hkh buds ikl vo’ks”k pkoy 5450&43 DohaVy gS] ftls bUgsa Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe] dfVgkj dks gLrxr djkuk gSA bl gsrq dsUnz ljdkj }kjk iwjs fcgkj esa rhu ckj frb c<+kbZ xbZ rFkk vafre frfFk fnukad 30&04&2013 fu/kkZfjr gSA** 3. When the Department itself had extended the time for delivery up to 30.04.2013, then how the prosecution has been launched on 16.04.2013. Such action of the informant speaks otherwise and by the action of informant certainly curtailed the opportunity to the petitioner to have an opportunity for delivery of remaining quantity as alleged during the intervening period which on account of having been an accused for cognizable offence could not materialized. 4. In State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. as reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 the following criteria have been fixed invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of the prosecution which are as follows :- "(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence on investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient grounds for proceedings against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceedings is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) 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." 5. Certainly the conduct of the prosecution falls under malafide prosecution and on account thereof the FIR of Town (Katihar) P.S. Case No. 186/2013 is hereby quashed. 6. Petition is allowed.