JUDGMENT :- Heard Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel for the State. No one appears on behalf of opposite party no.2. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with C.P. Case No. 483 of 2002, including the order dated 23.04.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Sections 341,379,406,420 of the Indian Penal code. 3. A complaint case was lodged by the complainant, opposite party no.2 herein, in which it was stated that the complainant and her husband had a Community Hall constructed out of their own income at Durga Mandir Road, Hirapur, Dhanbad and had named the same as” MADAN SMRITI BHAWAN” in the memory of elder brother of the husband of the complainant. It was also stated therein that the hall is used for various religious and social functions and is given on rent on a minimum rental basis and the details of the bookings are entered in the Registers and an account with respect to the same is also maintained. It was alleged that the petitioner, who is one of the elder brothers of the husband of the complainant, had come to the house of the complainant on 20.7.2002 and had asked the complainant to produce the files of the Community Hall and on good faith and not believing the ill-intention of the petitioner, had entrusted him with two cover files, containing all the necessary documents pertaining to the upkeep of the Community Hall. Thereafter, it has been alleged that while the petitioner was perusing the files in which a cash amount of Rs. 2,430/-was also kept, all of a sudden, there was power failure and the petitioner hurriedly left the house along with the files and the amount of Rs 2,430/-. 4. After filing of the complaint case, an inquiry was conducted under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by examining the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as her witnesses and thereafter vide order dated 23.4.2002, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad was pleased to take cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 379, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the criminal proceedings and the impugned order by submitting that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Dhanbad in a mechanical manner had taken cognizance for the offences mentioned therein without considering the fact that prima-facie, no criminal offence is made out against the petitioner on perusal of the complaint petition. He further submits that save and except the complainant and her husband, none of the witnesses have supported the factum of occurrence. He has further submitted that in fact with respect to the said incident, a first information report was instituted in which police had submitted final form and after issuance of notice vide order dated 26.3.2002, the final form submitted by the investigating officer was accepted and it was ordered to register a case as a complaint case. He further submits that apparently from the perusal of the complaint petition, it would be evident that the same relates to the dispute within the family with respect to ownership and accounts of the Community Hall and only with a view to deprive the petitioner of his share in the said Community Hall being the elder brother of the husband of the complainant, the present case has been instituted. 6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner on the pretext of going through the files of “MADAN SMRITI BHAWAN” and by taking advantage of the darkness fled away from the place of occurrence with the files as well as with the cash, which was kept in the files and therefore he submits that a criminal offence is made out against the petitioner and the petitioner should be directed to face trial. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, I find that initially a first information report was instituted which was registered as Dhanbad P.S Case No. 418 of 2002 and after investigation police has submitted final report showing the case to be of a civil nature. On being noticed, the informant had filed an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad not to accept the final form and after hearing the parties, an order was passed on 26.3.2002 whereby and whereunder the final form submitted by the investigating officer was accepted and a complaint was ordered to be registered. On being noticed, the informant had filed an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad not to accept the final form and after hearing the parties, an order was passed on 26.3.2002 whereby and whereunder the final form submitted by the investigating officer was accepted and a complaint was ordered to be registered. Even in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.2, it has been stated at paragraph 16 that C.P. Case No. 483 of 2002 is a separate file and not a part of Dhanbad P.S Case No. 418 of 2001 It would thus mean that C.P. Case No. 483 of 2002, which is the subject matter of the present quashing application, is absolutely a separate case and not being in continuation of Dhanbad P.S Case No. 418 of 2001. But it appears from the tenor and purport of the order dated 16.3.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad that on the protest petition filed by the complainant, the same was ordered to be registered as a complaint case pursuant to which cognizance was taken. Therefore it cannot be said that Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 418 of 2001 and C.P. Case No. 483 of 2002 are two separate cases. Be that as it may the perusal of the complaint case clearly reveals that the entire dispute is with respect to monetary collection which is made on account of the Community Hall being given on rent to the outsiders for the purpose of conducting various ceremonies like marriage, religious functions etc. The allegations further more seems to be absurd and unbelievable that the petitioner had in cover of darkness fled away with the cover files as also with a paltry sum of Rs. 2,430/-. This allegation itself creates a grave doubt with respect to the motive of the complainant in initiating the criminal case. If such criminal proceedings are allowed to continue it will lead to miscarriage of justice as well as will be an abuse of the process of court. 8. In view of what has been discussed above, I do find merit in this application. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings in connection with C.P. Case No. 483 of 2002, including the order dated 23.04.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, is hereby quashed. 9. This application is allowed.