JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Notice upon opposite party no. 2 has been effected. Vide order dated 04.07.2023, the matter was adjourned with a view to provide one more opportunity to opposite party no. 2. Today when the matter was called out, nobody has responded on behalf of opposite party no. 2. 2. In that view of the matter, this petition is being heard on merit in absence of opposite party no. 2. 3. Heard Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the State. 4. This petition has been filed for quashing of cognizance order dated 03.09.2016 including entire criminal proceeding of Deoghar P.S. Case No. 727 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 2095 of 2013/2096 of 2013, pending in the court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar. 5. Vide order dated 20.11.2017, notices were issued upon opposite party no. 2 and further proceeding was stayed and subsequently by the order dated 15.07.2022, the learned court has issued bailable warrant of arrest, non-bailable warrant of arrest as well as processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners simultaneously by one order, which has been challenged by filing I.A. No. 3439 of 2023 and the said I.A. has been allowed vide order dated 04.07.2023. Thus, the order dated 15.07.2022 is also under challenge. 6. The FIR was registered by the opposite party no. 2 alleging therein that on 27.11.2013 at about 7:30 PM while he was sitting in his home with his friends he saw a vehicle which suddenly stopped near the gate and six persons got inside the gate. It was further alleged that he saw Deevi Sai Babu, Sakal Deo Singh and Santosh Kumar (petitioners) and three unknown persons who were carrying arms. Deevi Sai Babu (Petitioner No. 2) caught hold the collar of the informant and Sakal Deo Singh & Santosh Kumar (Petitioner No. 1 & 3) started assaulting the informant and snatched the gold-chain from the neck & cash of Rs.5,500/-from the pocket of the Informant. Deevi Sai Babu asked the Informant to return the document and to withdraw the Title Suit filed at Ranchi and took out the revolver from his waist and pointed on temple of the informant and threatened to kill him. Deevi Sai Babu asked the Informant to return the document and to withdraw the Title Suit filed at Ranchi and took out the revolver from his waist and pointed on temple of the informant and threatened to kill him. Sakal Deo Singh in the meanwhile asked that the uncle had given all the documents upon which the informant had filed the civil suit. It was further alleged that Rs.20,00,000/-(Twenty Lacs) was demanded by way of extortion besides all the documents as well as withdrawal of the civil suit. It was also alleged that all the accused persons dragged the informant into the vehicle but the persons present there objected so, the informant was pushed out of the vehicle and fled away threatening the informant to withdraw the case and to return all the documents within 72 hours, failing which the informant would be killed. 7. Mr. Bakshi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been allowed anticipatory bail by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Deoghar vide order dated 27.05.2014. He further submits that petitioner nos.1 & 2 are Trustees of 'World Buddha Foundation' and petitioner no. 3 is the Accountant of the said Foundation, which is a Buddhist Minority and a charitable trust and there has been no criminal antecedent prior to institution of instant case against the petitioners and all of them have been dragged into the present criminal case as the informant and his associates namely Shiv Dutt Sharma and many others have greedy eyes over the property of 'World Buddha Foundation' situated at Ranchi, Ramgarh, Barka Chumba, Delhi, Dehradun, Chhatisgarh, Bodh Gaya and other places. He further submits that the petitioners have been dragged into the criminal case on the instigation of Shiv Dutt Sharma, who is the person behind the picture in this case. He also submits that on 22.05.1976, World Buddha Foundation was formed by Dr. Hari Narayan Chaturvedi @ Dr. Harish Sankrityayan by his donation and on 26.09.1978, the Deed of Trust of World Buddha Foundation was registered under Indian Trust Act, 1882 at Ranchi. He submits that the said institution is running and managing a number of educational schools, colleges, temples, houses for Buddhist Monks to stay and live at various places in different districts in different States. He submits that from 14.09.2013, the Chairman of the said Foundation namely Dr. Hari Narayan Chaturvedi @ Dr. He submits that the said institution is running and managing a number of educational schools, colleges, temples, houses for Buddhist Monks to stay and live at various places in different districts in different States. He submits that from 14.09.2013, the Chairman of the said Foundation namely Dr. Hari Narayan Chaturvedi @ Dr. Harish Sankrityayan was not traceable then the Secretary of the organization has submitted a written complaint before the Officer-in-Charge, Bariatu Police Station, Ranchi vide letter dated 23.09.2013 for lodging of an FIR with respect to kidnapping of the Chairman and the said written complaint has also been received by the office of the S.S.P., Ranchi, D.S.P., Ranchi and S.P., Nigrani, Ranchi and pursuant to that Bariatu P.S. Case No. 38 of 2014 has been registered against the persons including opposite party no. 2. He further submits that it is unbelievable that such incident of snatching will be done by the petitioners. He relied upon the judgment passed in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1 . He further submits that the case of the petitioners is further covered in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. In this background, he submits that the case is maliciously filed against the petitioners and they are unnecessarily facing the trial. 8. Paragraphs 27 and 28 of the judgment passed in Inder Mohan Goswami (supra) are quoted herein-below: “27. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy, more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage. 28. This Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 404, observed that the wholesome power under Section 482 CrPC entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The Court observed in this case that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the legislature. This case has been followed in a large number of subsequent cases of this Court and other courts.” 9. Mr. Dubey, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned court has rightly taken cognizance. 10. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that admittedly earlier the case was registered against the informant (opposite party no. 2) and Shiv Dutt Sharma and others for kidnapping of Dr. Hari Narayan Chaturvedi @ Dr. Harish Sankrityayan and subsequently the present case has been filed. In spite of notice, opposite party no. 2 has chosen not to appear before this Court. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even before the learned court, the informant is not appearing. Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are Trustee and petitioner no. 3 is the Accountant of the said Foundation. In the FIR, it has been alleged that the petitioners have tried to snatch golden chain and tried to assault. It appears that the petitioners, who are Trustees having responsible life in the society and maliciously the case has been lodged against the petitioners. The case of the petitioners is fully covered in view of the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Inder Mohan Goswami and BhajanLal (supra). 11. It appears that the petitioners, who are Trustees having responsible life in the society and maliciously the case has been lodged against the petitioners. The case of the petitioners is fully covered in view of the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Inder Mohan Goswami and BhajanLal (supra). 11. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the cognizance order dated 03.09.2016 as well as the order dated 15.07.2022 including the entire criminal proceeding of Deoghar P.S. Case No. 727 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 2095 of 2013/2096 of 2013, pending in the court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar are quashed. 12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.