JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned APP for the State. 2. The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 02.05.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna taking cognizance against the petitioners in Complaint Case No. 949 (C) of 2006 for the offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. According to the prosecution case, the instant complaint has been filed for non-payment of the assured amount upon death of the complainant’s father, the life assured, on 11.10.2003. Despite the claim paper being furnished by the complainant, the petitioners, who are officials of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short, “LIC of India”), demanded illegal gratification from the complainant for settling the death claim. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint has been filed with mala fide intention and is a vexatious one. As a matter of fact, the complainant’s claim had been repudiated by the LIC of India as far back as on 31.03.2006 which was duly communicated to him, and the instant complaint has been filed soon thereafter on 13.04.2006. The complainant filed Consumer Complaint Case No. 505 of 2006 before the District Consumer Disputes redressal Forum, Patna in which LIC of India on 13.07.2007 was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with 10% interest to the complainant. Such order was subsequently set aside in Appeal No. 486 of 2007 preferred by the LIC of India, by order dated 13.07.2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna. 5. Learned APP appears on behalf of the State and has been heard. Despite service of notice and appearance having been entered on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, he is not represented when the matter is called today. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds considerable force in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners. It is a matter of record that the instant complaint appears to have been filed within a fortnight of the repudiation of the complainant’s claim apparently to put pressure upon the petitioners. It is also a matter of record that the complainant filed Consumer Complaint Case No. 505 of 2006 which shows that the nature of the claim could not have given rise to a dispute of criminal nature. It is also a matter of record that the complainant filed Consumer Complaint Case No. 505 of 2006 which shows that the nature of the claim could not have given rise to a dispute of criminal nature. The complaint has clearly been filed with a view to harass the petitioners. 7. This Court is therefore of the view that continuance of criminal prosecution against the petitioners would, in the facts and circumstances of the case, amount to abuse of process of the court. 8. Accordingly, the order dated 02.05.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna taking cognizance against the petitioners in Complaint Case No. 949 (C) of 2006 for the offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed. The petition stands allowed. 9. Registry is directed to send back the lower court records without any delay.