JUDGMENT : This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 2. Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Binod Jha, the learned counsel appearing for the O.P.No.2 and Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State. 3. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding initiated against the petitioners including the First Information Report in connection with Ghatshila P.S.Case No.59/2013, arising out of Complaint Case No.C/1 86/2013, corresponding to G.R.Case No.391/2013. Consequently the petitioners challenged the cognizance order dated 13.11.2019 by way of filing I.A. No.3846/2021 which was allowed by this Court by order dated 09.08.2021. Thus, the cognizance order dated 13.11.2019 is also under challenge in this petition. The complaint was filed stating therein that, the prosecution case in brief is that on Pradeep Kumar Das, Ex.Senior Technician having T.N.No.32114 employee of S.E. Railway, Kharagpur made a complaint before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatshila stating therein that he remained on medical leave and was under treatment of one Dr. Anukaran Purty after taking necessary leave from the concerned department of S.E.Railway, Kharagpur but the petitioner No.1 to 3 all collusively suppressed the letter of the complainant/informant and issued letter to the Dr. Anukaran Purty that he cannot treat him, as the complainant is permanent service man of the S.E.Railway unless prior permission and information to the concerned authority under the provisions of Railway Establishment were given. Further he stated in his complaint that Dr. Anukaran Purty became aggrieved and dissatisfied constituted a Medical Board for the treatment of the complainant and forwarded the report of the Board to the accused/petitioners. The complainant also forwarded his application for extension of leave of being unfit dated 17.08.2012 against on 20.08.2012 duly received on 25.08.2012 but to defame the said Doctor. The accused no.1 to 4 illegally issued letter to the Doctor on 11.10.2012 vide office letter no.EC/20/Danda/PKD/32/5793. The complainant also forwarded his application for extension of leave of being unfit dated 17.08.2012 against on 20.08.2012 duly received on 25.08.2012 but to defame the said Doctor. The accused no.1 to 4 illegally issued letter to the Doctor on 11.10.2012 vide office letter no.EC/20/Danda/PKD/32/5793. Further the complainant disclosed that the accused petitioners somehow managed to get certificate of fitness of the complainants from Railway Doctor on 11.02.2013 to 28.02.2013 and later on extended up to 02.03.2013 and allowed him to do normal duty since 05.03.2013. Further the complainant alleged that the accused petitioners manipulated in the service record of the complainant shown a lady Manju Das as his wife for ulterior motive to cheat, defame an to take extortion money of Rs.2 lacs from the complainant. Upon which the complainant has been sent to the concerned police Station for its investigation under 156(3) of Cr.P.C. 4. Pursuant to the said complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. F.I.R. was registered against these petitioners. 5. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 is Deputy Chief Engineer (Carriage) S.E.Railway Wokshop, Kharagpur, petitioner no.2 is Assistant Works Manager (Carriage), S.E.Railway Workshop, Kharagpur, petitioner no.3 is Senior Section Engineer and petitioner no.4 is Office Superintendent (Carriage) S.E.Railway Workshop, Kharagpur. He submits that these petitioners have been falsely implicated by way of filing complaint petition. He submits that in a planned conspiracy the petitioners under the threat and coercion have been implicated in this case. He further submits that the informant in service period was remained unauthorized absent from service and submits that as he got double marriage to another lady having own spouse and also for suppression of fact that he remained in judicial custody for more than 48 hours, whereby and for such conduct he has been removed from service after adopting procedures in departmental proceeding. The informant has not chosen to contest in appeal which was filed by him against the dismissal from service, rather, he instituted criminal case on frivolous ground against these petitioners. He further submits that the informant was removed from service on 07.07.2013 and F.I.R was registered on 14.08.2013. The informant has not chosen to contest in appeal which was filed by him against the dismissal from service, rather, he instituted criminal case on frivolous ground against these petitioners. He further submits that the informant was removed from service on 07.07.2013 and F.I.R was registered on 14.08.2013. He further submits that the entire episode is based on the misconduct of remaining unauthorized absent from duty and suppression of his detention in the police/judicial custody in a criminal case, double marriage instated by Manju Das represented vide two letters dated 27.06.2012 and 28.06.2013 before the higher officials of the Railway (Kharagpur) annexing the order of the concerned court passed in criminal prosecution being Kharagpur (KGP) P.S.Case No.127/2012 instituted on 06.05.2012 under sections 498(A)/323/506/34 of the IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act wherein the informant has been arrested by the police on 13.05.2012 and remained in custody till 16.05.2012 but the informant suppressed this fact with the higher officials of the Railways. The informant replied on 24.07.2012 stating that Manju Das is not his wife and his wife is Smt. Sandhya Das and suddenly Manju Das filed the F.I.R. at Kharagpur in which he was arrested. He further submits that he has applied for leave application for 11 days on the ground of urgent work from 12.05.2012 to 22.05.2012 and later on he has filed application of medical leave stating therein that he was ill and for that he had produced the medical certificate which are contrary. He further submits that only due to action taken by the higher officials, these petitioners have been implicated in a false case. He further submits that the petitioners are entitled for protection under section 197 Cr.P.C. as they are discharging the official duty. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Jha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2 submits that there is allegation against the petitioners and the cognizance has been rightly taken by the concerned court under the sections which have been recorded in the cognizance order. He submits that these petitioners have manipulated the service book of the informant and that is why the complaint has been filed. He further submits that this is not a stage to interfere in the criminal proceeding and the petitioners are having the remedy under the law by way of filing discharge petition. He submits that these petitioners have manipulated the service book of the informant and that is why the complaint has been filed. He further submits that this is not a stage to interfere in the criminal proceeding and the petitioners are having the remedy under the law by way of filing discharge petition. On these grounds, he submits that this petition is fit to be rejected. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent State supported the cognizance order. 8. The Court has gone through the entire record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is an admitted fact that the informant was working with the Railways. He was removed from service on 07.07.2013. He filed appeal against dismissal but he has not pursued the appeal. He has chosen to file the complaint against these petitioners. The materials on record also suggest that he took leave on the ground of urgent work and after releasing from the judicial custody he appeared before the authorities and produced the medical certificate and stated that he was ill. The application for leave and subsequent action of the informant are contradictory. By letter dated 05.01.1960 of the Railways it was disclosed that all the Railway servants who may be arrested for any reason to intimate the fact of his arrest and the circumstances connected herewith to his official superiors promptly even though he might have subsequently been released on bail. Failure on the part of any Railway servant to so inform his official superiors will be regarded as suppression of the material information and will render him liable to disciplinary action on this ground alone. This is a case of malafide intention which has been instituted against these petitioners who are the officials of the Railways. A reference may be made to the case of State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Paragraph no.102 of the said judgment is quoted herein below : “102. This is a case of malafide intention which has been instituted against these petitioners who are the officials of the Railways. A reference may be made to the case of State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Paragraph no.102 of the said judgment is quoted herein below : “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (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, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no 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 ground for proceeding 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 proceeding 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. 9. The case of the petitioners is covered under the direction of sub-para-7 of para-102 of the judgment rendered in the case of State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others (supra). Section 197 has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain, (2020) 7 SCC 695 . Paragraph no.30 and 49 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow : “30. The object of sanction for prosecution, whether under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or under Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act, is to protect a public servant/police officer discharging official duties and functions from harassment by initiation of frivolous retaliatory criminal proceedings. As held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari : (AIR p. 48, para 15) “15. … Public servants have to be protected from harassment in the discharge of official duties while ordinary citizens not so engaged do not require this safeguard. … There is no question of any discrimination between one person and another in the matter of taking proceedings against a public servant for an act done or purporting to be done by the public servant in the discharge of his official duties. No one can take such proceedings without such sanction.” 49. … There is no question of any discrimination between one person and another in the matter of taking proceedings against a public servant for an act done or purporting to be done by the public servant in the discharge of his official duties. No one can take such proceedings without such sanction.” 49. Citing the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Mr. Poovayya argued that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly prompted by mala fides and instituted with the ulterior motive of vengeance due to private or personal grudge, power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code ought to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of court and/or to secure the ends of justice.” 10. The Court has also perused the cognizance order which is under challenge. In the cognizance order, the learned court has not disclosed the reasons of taking cognizance against these petitioners. It is well settled that at the stage of taking cognizance it is only to be seen as to whether any offence is made out or not. At this stage the court is not to go into the merit of the case made out by the police in the charge sheet or in the complaint. Nor at this stage the success of the case is to be weighed by a detailed order. The duty of the Magistrate is limited at this stage. It is clear that it is not necessary to pass a detailed order giving detail reasons while taking cognizance. The order taking cognizance should only reflect application of judicial mind. If the Magistrate after going through the complaint petition and the statements of the other witnesses or after going through the FIR, case diary and charge sheet or the complaint, comes to the conclusion that the offence is made out, he is bound to take cognizance of the offence. The order should reflect application of judicial mind to the extent that from the FIR, the case diary or complaint, offence is made out. In the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla, (2005) 8 SCC 89 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph no.5 has held as under : “5. Section 203 of the Code empowers a Magistrate to dismiss a complaint without even issuing a process. In the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla, (2005) 8 SCC 89 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph no.5 has held as under : “5. Section 203 of the Code empowers a Magistrate to dismiss a complaint without even issuing a process. It uses the words “after considering” and “the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding”. These words suggest that the Magistrate has to apply his mind to a complaint at the initial stage itself and see whether a case is made out against the accused persons before issuing process to them on the basis of the complaint. For applying his mind and forming an opinion as to whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding, a complaint must make out a prima facie case to proceed. This, in other words, means that a complaint must contain material to enable the Magistrate to make up his mind for issuing process. If this were not the requirement, consequences could be far-reaching. If a Magistrate had to issue process in every case, the burden of work before the Magistrate as well as the harassment caused to the respondents to whom process is issued would be tremendous. Even Section 204 of the Code starts with the words “if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding”. The words “sufficient ground for proceeding” again suggest that ground should be made out in the complaint for proceeding against the respondent. It is settled law that at the time of issuing of the process the Magistrate is required to see only the allegations in the complaint and where allegations in the complaint or the charge-sheet do not constitute an offence against a person, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.” 11. In the case of Pepsi Food Limited and Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, (1998) 5 SCC 749 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph no.28 has observed as follows : “28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.” 12. This proposition has also been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramdev Food Products Private Limited v. State of Gujarat, (2015) 6 SCC 439 . Thus, a serious order, i.e. summoning order should not be issued casually in a mechanical manner. The order taking cognizance and the summoning order is passed in a most casual manner without recording his satisfaction and as to what are the bare minimum materials available on record. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent State as well as the O.P.No.2 so far as the cognizance order is concerned, is not tenable and is not accepted by the Court. The argument of Mr. Jha, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 of filing the discharge petition has also not been accepted by the Court as the Court has come to the conclusion that this case against the petitioners has been levelled malafidely which is covered in view of paragraph 102(7) of the judgment rendered in the case of State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others (supra). 13. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and applying the aforesaid principle, the entire criminal proceeding of complaint case being Complaint Case No.C/1 86/2013, corresponding to G.R.Case No.391/2013 and order taking cognizance dated 13.11.2019 passed in the said case, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Ghatshila are hereby quashed. 14. Cr.M.P.No.3054 of 2013 stands allowed and disposed of.