JUDGMENT : M. Nagaprasanna, J. 1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in Crime No.182/2021 pending before the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru registered for offences punishable under Ss. 417, 420 of the IPC and Sec. 66(D) and 74 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 2. Heard the learned senior counsel Sri. Murthy D. Naik, appearing for Sri. Seetharamu S.P. learned counsel for petitioner and Smt. Yashoda K.P. learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2/complainant though served is unrepresented. 3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows: The petitioner claims to be a Public Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 2013. The petitioner also claims to be in the manufacture and marketing of cattle feed and other animal products for farmers all over India. It is the further claim of the petitioner that generally it would invite applications from interested people to sell animal products marketed by the Company at reasonable price and issue advertisement for that purpose in various newspapers to connect the Company to the people willing to sell cattle feed products to farmers. The petitioner has also appended several documents to demonstrate its business and certificate of registration of trade mark. 4. In furtherance of their business, the petitioner issued advertisement in various newspapers calling for applications for appointment of eligible persons to the post of 'Pashu Sangopana Karyakartha' also indicating the pay scale. One such notification was published in Vijaya Karnataka, a daily newspaper. The moment said publication came about, it transpires that a twitter message was indicated to the Deputy Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Sciences, Bangalore contending that the petitioner/Company is calling people in the name of the Department of Animal Husbandry and has made crores of rupees. Based upon this suspicion, a complaint is registered by the Deputy Director of Animal Husbandry on 6/9/2021 which becomes a FIR in Crime No.182 of 2021 for offences punishable under Ss. 417 and 420 of the IPC and Ss. 66(D) and 74 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It is at that juncture, the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court in the subject petition. 5. The learned senior counsel Mr. Murthy D.Naik would vehemently argue and contend that the petitioner is a Company established in accordance with law. 417 and 420 of the IPC and Ss. 66(D) and 74 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It is at that juncture, the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court in the subject petition. 5. The learned senior counsel Mr. Murthy D.Naik would vehemently argue and contend that the petitioner is a Company established in accordance with law. It has no where taken the name of the Department of Animal Husbandry and cheating the people. It wanted to recruit people to its organization which is an independent organization and on suspicion the complaint is registered. He would submit that even if narration in the complaint is construed to be true, it would not make out an offence punishable either under Sec. 417 or Sec. 420 of the IPC. 6. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader would seek to justify the action of the State in registering the complaint. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned senior counsel and the learned High Court Government Pleader and have perused the material on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts being not in dispute are not reiterated. The entire issue springs from the complaint and as such, is extracted for quick reference: A perusal at the complaint would indicate the allegations being two fold. One on the basis of a tweet from a person called Mahesh Ganjigere alleging that the petitioner-Company has cheated the public to crores of rupees on giving the said advertisement and calling for applications; the other allegation is that, it has used the name of Animal Husbandry Department and Veterinary Services and its logo while issuing the notification calling for applications. Both these grounds on which the complaint is registered are untenable. 9. A perusal at the advertisement would clearly indicate that it nowhere resembles to any recruitment notification of Government nor has used the logo of the Animal Husbandry Department. The advertisement does not indicate any inducement to the public to apply and get themselves appointed, except stating that it is appointing Pashu Sangopana Karyakarthas. There is nothing that would indicate the offences punishable under Sec. 417 or Sec. 420 of the IPC. Simply based on a twitter comment of a disgruntled element, criminal law is set in motion by registering the complaint. There is nothing that would indicate the offences punishable under Sec. 417 or Sec. 420 of the IPC. Simply based on a twitter comment of a disgruntled element, criminal law is set in motion by registering the complaint. The complaint being so vague, even if it is construed to be true, it would not make out an offence that would touch upon ingredients of either Sec. 417 or Sec. 420 of the IPC. If further proceedings or investigation is permitted to continue against the petitioner on the aforesaid complaint or the facts, it would degenerate into harassment against the petitioner and be an abuse of the process of law. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: ORDER: (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned proceedings in Crime No.182 of 2021 pending before the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru stand quashed qua the petitioner.