JUDGMENT : PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. The instant application has been filed for quashing of order dated 13.03.2019 whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Darbhanga (hereinafter referred to as the “Magistrate”) was pleased to take cognizance for the offences under Sections 420, 379 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code against petitioner and others in connection with L.N.M.U. Case No. 205 of 2016. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that one Sohan Chaudhary, who was posted as Junior Engineer in L.N. Mithila University, has succeeded to remove original records of his educational qualification and process of appointment in order to conceal his illegal appointment so that it may not be verified in future. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon direction of Registrar of the University, an F.I.R. was instituted on 11.09.2016 against Sohan Chaudhary, incharge University Engineer and after investigation, police submitted final report on 05.05.2017 showing the case to be false against the sole accused. However; differing with the police report, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against sole F.I.R. named accused Sohan Chaudhary and petitioner and other two employees of the University namely Sachin Kumar and Madhav Kumar Jha, Clerk and Peon respectively in connection with L.N. University P.S. Case No. 205 of 2016. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner is neither named in the F.I.R. nor there is any whisper of allegation against this petitioner. Even during investigation, the investigating officer has not found any incriminating material against petitioner and submitted final form. As per allegations made in the F.I.R. the entire occurrence, as alleged in the F.I.R. took place prior to 11.09.2016, whereas, this petitioner came to be deputed as in-charge Deputy Registrar-I on 11.02.2017 i.e. much after the institution of the F.I.R. In fact, the petitioner was doing teaching job at Millat College, Laheriasarai, Darbhanga and was never posted in the office of the Registrar of the University and as such, there was no occasion for the petitioner to be involved in the alleged occurrence. It is next submitted that only material that has come in the case diary is that when the officer in-charge visited the office of Registrar of the University on 09.03.2017, this petitioner was found posted as Deputy Registrar-I. 5. It is next submitted that only material that has come in the case diary is that when the officer in-charge visited the office of Registrar of the University on 09.03.2017, this petitioner was found posted as Deputy Registrar-I. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even if the entire allegations, made in the F.I.R., including the materials collected during course of investigation, are taken on their face value and accepted in their entirety, it do not constitute any prima facie offence or make out any case and as such, continuation of this proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of the court. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant/L.N.M. University does not dispute or contradict the assertions made on behalf of petitioner. In fact, in paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2, it has been specifically stated that this petitioner was never posted prior to the institution of the F.I.R. and vide Notification dated 10.02.2017, the petitioner was deputed as Deputy Registrar-I in addition to his teaching job and pursuant to the same, the petitioner gave his joining as Deputy Registrar-I on 11.02.2017. In paragraph-7, it has clearly been stated that petitioner was not at all concerned with institution of the F.I.R. 7. Taking into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the parties, facts and circumstances of the case including materials available on record and in view of facts mentioned in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of University, it is an admitted position that prior to his joining, the petitioner was never posted in the office of Registrar of the University, rather he was doing a teaching job in Millat College, Laheriasarai, Darbhanga and as such, petitioner was not at all concerned with the alleged occurrence. There is neither any averment in the F.I.R. nor any incriminating material has been collected during course of investigation against this petitioner and as such, continuation of the case is an abuse of the process of the Court and is liable to be quashed. 8. There is neither any averment in the F.I.R. nor any incriminating material has been collected during course of investigation against this petitioner and as such, continuation of the case is an abuse of the process of the Court and is liable to be quashed. 8. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances and on perusal of the F.I.R. and other materials on record and also on the analysis of argument advanced by the contesting party in the light of certain principles of law, it is apparent that the order of cognizance has been passed in a very mechanical manner without there being any incriminating material against the petitioner. There was no material on the basis of which any prudent person can ever reach on a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 13.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Darbhanga in L.N.M.U. Case No. 205 of 2016, so far as this petitioner is concerned, is, hereby, set aside and the petition is allowed.