1. This petition under Section 482 read with Section 483 of CrPC has been filed assailing the order dated 27-03-2018 passed by Shri Nisar Ahmad, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia in Unregistered Criminal Complaint whereby, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has directed to take cognizance against petitioner and other co-accused for offence punishable under Sections 166, 294, 451, 182, 506-B, 211 r/w Sections 34 and 149 of IPC.

2. The petition, in brief, states as under:-

(I) Abhishek Shivhare, son of respondent-Omprakash Shivhare had taken loan from Punjab National Bank, Branch Gandhi Road, Datia as Proprietor of M/s. Anamaya Pet India by mortgaging his property ad-measuring 800 sq. ft with the bank.

(II) Abhishek Shivhare, in order to secure the loan submitted forged and frivolous documents and failed to repay the loan amount.

(III) Petitioner Bibhuranjan Kar was working as LDM in in Punjab National Bank. After scrutiny of loan transaction, it was found that Abhishek Shivhare in collusion with the Bank Officers embezzled the loan amount, therefore, an FIR was lodged by Senior Manager, Arvind Kumar Gupta against Abhishek Shivhare, his father Omprakash Shivhare (complainant) and Bank Officers for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC. The Police Station Kotwali, District Datia registered FIR at Crime No. 38 of 2015 on 09-02-2015 against Abhishek Shivhare, his father Omprakash Shivhare and four others.

(IV) After investigation, Final Report was submitted before the Court. The case was committed to the Sessions Court for its trial. On completion of trial, Abhishek Shivhare was convicted and complainant Omprakash Shivhare was acquitted vide judgment dated 25-05-2017. The Punjab National Bank filed a leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal in favour of Omprakash Shivhare, before the High Court (MCRC No. 527 of 2018) and for enhancing the punishment of complainant Abhishek Shivhare in Criminal Revision No. 76 of 2018. Abhishek Shivhare filed Criminal Appeal No. 709 of 2017 challenging the conviction.

(V) As Abhishek Shivhare failed to repay the loan amount, proceeding under the provisions of Secularization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act [hereinafter referred to as SARFAESI Act, 2002] was initiated against him. Arvind Kumar Gupta, the then Senior Manager of Punjab National Bank, Branch Gandhi Road, Datia took possession of the mortgaged property area 800 sq.ft. in compliance with due process.

(VI) Thereafter, auction proceeding was conducted and the Punjab National Bank issued sale certificate in favour of Rakesh Kumar Sundarani and hand-over possession of mortgaged property ad-measuring 800 sq.ft. to the auction purchaser Rakesh Kumar Sundarani on 06-07-2015.

(VII) Accused Abhishek Shivhare and Omprakash Shivhare (in Crime No. 38 of 2015) submitted an application before the learned CJM, Datia (the Committal Court) for stay of auction proceeding. An ex parte stay was granted vide order dated 02-07-2015. Omprakash Shivhare gave information of stay order to Bank on 09-07-2015. Prior to receipt of information, sale certificate was already issued in favour of Rakesh Kumar Sundarani on 06-07-2015 and possession of the mortgaged property was handed over. Accordingly, the Bank gave intimation to the Committal Court. The Committal Court directed to lock the premises vide order 16-07-2015.

(VIII) The Punjab National Bank preferred a revision against the order dated 02-07-2015 before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the Bank preferred a petition under Section 482 of CrPC before the High Court, which was allowed vide order dated 18-03-2016 passed in MCRC No. 1231 of 2016.

(IX) Respondent-complainant Omprakash Shivhare filed a complaint dated 18-02-2017 before CJM, Datia against the petitioner and other Officers of the Bank. Omprakash Shivhare filed an application under Section 310 of CrPC seeking local inspection of land which had been mortgaged by Abhishek Shivhare with the Bank. Learned trial Court allowed the application and learned CJM made the inspection himself. The Punjab National Bank challenged the inspection report before the learned Sessions Judge in revision but the same was dismissed on 26-12-2017. The Bank filed a petition under Section 482 of CrPC challenging the said orders in MCRC No. 1664 of 2018. The High Court dismissed the petition but clarified that the inspection report will not be treated as evidence against the Bank.

(X) Complainant-Omprakash Shivhare also filed Contempt Petition No. 926 of 2017 before the High Court. The said contempt proceeding was dismissed as withdrawn.

(XI) Learned trial Court, on the basis of statement of complainant and witness recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of CrPC took cognizance for offence punishable under Sections 166, 294, 451, 182, 506-B and 211 read with Sections 34 and 149 of IPC against petitioner and co-accused.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27-03-2018, this petition under Section 482 of CrPC is filed assailing the order on the following grounds:-

(I) The impugned order is manifestly illegal and arbitrary. It is an abuse of process of law. The complaint case is the counterblast to the legal proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. Section 32 of SARFAESI Act provides for protection to the Bank Officers. Learned trial Court has taken cognizance ignoring this legal aspect.

(II) Petitioner Bibhuranjan Kar has assumed charge of LDM, Datia on 13-04-2015 Petitioner was not present at the time of incident. He did not participate in the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner is involved in the complaint for the reason that criminal proceeding has been registered against the complainant and his son by his Bank.

(III) No offence under Section 182 or Section 211 of IPC is made out against the petitioner. Proceeding under Section 182 of IPC cannot be initiated by the private complainant. The Magistrate cannot take cognizance of offence under Section 211 of IPC in view of bar under Section 195(1)(b) of CrPC. Learned Trial Court without applying judicial mind, has taken cognizance of the aforesaid offence.

(IV) As per the complaint, the incident took place on 18-06-2014 but the cognizance was taken on 27-03-2018 after lapse of period of limitation prescribed under Section 468 of CrPC. Further, the ingredients of offence punishable under Sections 294, 451, 506 of IPC are not made out.

4. On aforementioned grounds, it is requested that the impugned order dated 27-03-2018 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia in Unregistered Criminal Case and consequential proceedings in Case No. 193 of 2018 (RCT) pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the application and submits that learned Judicial Magistrate after due application of mind proceeded to issue process against the revision petitioner. Learned Judicial Magistrate has not committed any error in the impugned order.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. Learned Judicial Magistrate on the basis of statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and statement of witness recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. has taken cognizance of the alleged offence. The cognizance is taken after due compliance of the process and application of Judicial mind on the material available on record, therefore, no interference is called for in exercise of inherent powers.

7. Learned counsel further contends that the efficacious relief of revision is available to the petitioner, therefore, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgments of Prabhu Chawla vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 2016 SC 4245 [LQ/SC/2016/1162] , Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs Special Judicial Magistrate 1998 5 SCC 749, [LQ/SC/1997/1443] IRIS Computers Ltd. Vs Askari Infotech Pvt. Ltd. 2015 14 SCC 399 [LQ/SC/2013/147] and Devendra Kishan Lal Dagalia Vs. Dwarkesh Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. 2014 2 SCC 246 [LQ/SC/2013/1306] submits that if the Magistrate has erroneously issued process to the accused, remedy available to recall the process lies under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. only. Availability of alternate remedy of revision under Section 397 of CrPC cannot by itself be a ground to dismiss petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The contention of revision-petitioner has substance this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable against the impugned order of learned CJM issuing the process against the revision-petitioner.

9. Heard both the parties and perused the record.

10. In case of State of Haryana v. BhajanLal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Supreme Court laid down the principles for the exercise of the jurisdiction by the High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR and observed :

"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 CrPC 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) CrPC except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) CrPC.

(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) CrPC.

(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 Act concerned (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."

11. Perused the complaint, the statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. statement of witnesses recorded under Section 202 of CrPC, the impugned order and the material available on record.

12. The Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, [LQ/SC/2013/105] laid down the steps to be followed for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, regarding quashment of proceedings as under:-

29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far-reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution's/complainant's case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice.

30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC:

30.1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality

30.2. Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false

30.3. Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant

30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice

30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.

13. Learned Magistrate has directed issuance of process against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 166, 294, 451, 182, 506-B and 211 r/w Sections 34 and 149 of IPC. Learned CJM relied upon the statements of complainant Omprakash Shivhare and witnesses Sukhnandan and Kundan Kamariya as well as the spot inspection report under Section 310 of Cr.P.C.

14. In case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs Special Judicial Magistrate 1998 5 SCC 749 [LQ/SC/1997/1443] of Para 28 reads as under:-

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. 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.

15. The factual scenario of case in hand is examined in the light of aforementioned proposition of law.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the alleged offence punishable under Sections 166, 294, 182, 506 (Part-I) and 211 of IPC are the offence punishable with imprisonment up to two years. Learned counsel referring to Section 468 of Cr.P.C. contends that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed an error in taking cognizance of the offence after expiry of three years from the date of incident.

17. As per the complaint, the offence punishable under Sections 294 and 506 of IPC was committed on 18.06.2014, whereas, the offence punishable under Sections 182 and 211 of IPC was committed on 10.01.2015 when Arvind Kumar Gupta submitted written complaint with Police Station-Kotwali, Datia. The complaint was filed on 18-02-2017 by Omprakash Shivhare against the petitioner. The complaint is within the limitation under Section 468 (2) (c) of CrPC. In this regard, reliance is placed on the observation of five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in case of Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases (2014) 2 SCC 62, [LQ/SC/2013/1309] that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC, the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance.

18. Issuance of process for the offence punishable under Section 166 of IPC Section 166 of IPC provides for Public Servant disobeying the law with intent to cause injury to any person. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner was working as Public Servant and he has disobeyed any law. No opinion much less reasoned opinion is expressed in the impugned order in this regard.

19. Issuance of process for the offence punishable under Section 182 and Section 211 of IPC Omprakash, in his statement under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleged that Arvind Gupta with intention to cause wrongful loss to him registered false FIR against him at Police Station Kotwali, Datia which was registered at Crime No. 38/2015. He had to remain in custody for four five months which resulted in loss of business. On the basis of this statement, learned Judicial Magistrate proceeded to issue process for offence punishable under Sections 182 and 211 of IPC.

Section 182 of IPC provides for punishment for giving false information with intent to cause Public Servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person.

Section 195(1)(a)(i) of IPC provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of IPC except on the complaint in writing of the Public Servant concerned or of some other Public Servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. Therefore, cognizance of offence punishable under Section 182 of IPC cannot be taken on complaint of private person i.e. complainant Omprakash.

Section 211 of IPC provides for punishment for institution of any criminal proceeding or charging falsely of having committed an offence with intention to injure any person knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person.

20. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent was acquitted of the charge punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-(B) of IPC vide judgment dated 25.05.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Datia in ST No. 09/2016.

21. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State and the Punjab National Bank had filed appeal against the judgment of acquittal which is pending consideration. It is further contended that the respondent Omprakash Shivhare was acquitted for failure of prosecution to prove involvement of Omprakash Shivhare in the alleged offence of the cheating and forgery. Learned trial Court has not concluded that Omprakash Shivhare was deliberately implicated on false charges.

22. Section 195 (1)(b)(i) of CrPC provides that no Court shall take cognizance of offence punishable under Section 211 of IPC, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, except on the complaint in writing of that Court. No such complaint was directed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Datia in ST No. 09/2016, while acquitting Omprakash Shivhare. Learned trial Court ignored this legal aspect before issuing the process against petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 182 and 211 of IPC. Thus, the impugned order suffers from patent illegality. (Abdul Rehman Vs. K.M. Anees-Ul-Haq (2011) 10 SCC 696 relied)

23. Issuance of process for offence punishable under Section 451 of IPC Learned CJM observed that the accused who were working as Officials of Bank had sealed the area which was in possession of the complainant. This act of unauthorized possession comes within purview of trespass. In spot inspection, it was found that the area sealed by the Punjab National Bank is more than 20x40 i.e. 800 sq. ft. The Bank Official had no authority to take the possession of unlimited area, therefore, prima facie, it is made out that the bank and its officials have encroached upon the area belonging to complainant.

Section 451 of IPC provides for house trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment. The essential ingredient to make out the offence of house trespass is commission of criminal trespass by entering into any building. Section 441 of IPC defines criminal trespass as under:-

"Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit "criminal trespass".

Thus, the prosecution must establish the essential ingredient that the property must be in possession of another to commit criminal trespass upon it.

24. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant failed to produce even prima-facie evidence to show that he was in possession of the property much less in legal possession of the property alleged to be encroached upon by the petitioner.

25. Learned counsel for petitioner referred to the Judgment dated 15.10.2023 passed in RCS-A-.71/2017 by the Court of 4th Additional Judge to the Court of First District Judge, Datia, the sale deed dated 19.09.2016 and registration certificate dated 27.09.2016 issued by the Commercial Tax Department in favour of Omprakash Shivhare with regard to registration M/s. Anamaya Ganga Package Drinking Water Unit-2 and contended that property adjacent to the mortgage property was purchased by Omprakash Shivhare in the year 2016 and the business in the name of M/s.Anamaya Ganga Package Drinking Water was registered with Commercial Tax Department in the year 2016, therefore, alleged adjacent property was not in legal possession of Omprakash before its purchase in year 2016 by Omprakash Shivhare.

26. The veracity of the judgment dated 15.03.2023 the sale deed dated 19.09.2016 and the registration certificate dated 27.09.2016 is not controverted by the respondent.

27. Omprakash Shivhare filed a civil suit against the Punjab National Bank for damages of Rs. 9 crores 70 lakhs for malicious prosecution and closure on his unit M/s Anamaya Ganga Package Drinking Water by the Officials of Punjab National Bank. Learned trial Court considered the evidence on record and concluded that M/s Anamaya Ganga Package Drinking Water was not in existence before 2016 and the land adjacent to M/s. Anamaya Pet India Ltd belonging to Abhishek Shivhare was not in legal possession of Omprakash Shivhare. The judgment of Civil Court was based on the evidence on record and the sale deed dated 19.09.2016 which specifically mentions transfer of possession of the land on the date of execution of sale deed.

28. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that respondent had filed appeal against the judgment of Civil Court which is pending but learned counsel was at loss to explain the averments with regard to transfer of possession in the sale deed dated 19.09.2016 and registration of Firm M/s. Anamaya Ganga Package Drinking Water in favour of Omprakash Shivhare on 27.09.2016.

29. Complainant Omprakash Shivhare has purchased property adjacent to the mortgaged property on 24-09-2016. Further, his Firm was registered with Commercial Tax Department on 27-09-2016. Therefore, the adjacent property alleged to be encroached upon by the Bank, did not belong to complainant on 18-06-2014, when the Bank took possession of the mortgaged property in the proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2002.

30. It goes to show that learned trial Court merely on the basis of statement of complainant and without verifying the factual scenario proceeded to issue process for the offence punishable under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. merely, on assumption that the bank officials have taken possession of area more than 800 sq. ft., therefore, the additional area belongs to the complainant. Thus, learned trial Court had committed grave error in this regard.

31. Issuance of process for the offence punishable under Sections 294 and 506-B of IPC

Learned CJM observed in the impugned order that when the Bank Officials were taking the possession of the mortgaged property, it is but natural that complainant would have objected to it and the bank officials would have used force and indulged in obscene behaviour with him. For the sake of clarity, the observation of learned CJM is extracted below:-

In furtherance of these observations, learned CJM proceeded to issue process for the offence punishable under Sections 294 and 506-B of IPC.

Omprakash Shivhare in his statement under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. has stated that, he asked them what are you doing They got angry and said There is nothing on record to suggest that the Bank Officials intentionally uttered obscene word to cause annoyance to the complainant.

Omprakash Shivhare in his statement under Section 200 of CrPC submits that Arvind Gupta and Surendra Sharma said that they will get him incarcerated in police station. There is nothing in his statement to the effect that the accused have threatened him to cause death or grievous hurt. Therefore, the ingredients to constitute offence punishable under Section 506-B (sic-second part of Section 506) of IPC were not made out from the statement of the complainant.

32. Thus, it is apparent that learned CJM without application of judicial mind proceeded to issue process against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 294 and 506-B of IPC, merely on conjectures and surmises.

33. Learned counsel for the petitioner forcefully submits that the Rajiv Kulshrestha, Amitabh Nigam and petitioner Bibhuranjan Kar were not even posted at Punjab National Bank, Branch-Gandhi Road, Datia at the time of alleged incident. As per the statement of complainant Omprakash recorded under Section 200 of CrPC only Arvind Kumar Gupta and Suresh Datt Sharma were present on spot on 18.06.2014. Petitioner Bibhuranjan Kar and co-accused Rajiv Kulshrestha and Amitabh Nigam were not present on spot at the time of alleged incident still cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 166, 294, 451, 182, 506-B and 211 of IPC is taken against them with aid of Sections 34 and 149 of IPC. The contentions has substance.

34. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not given reasons with regard to prima facie constitution of ingredients of the offence punishable under Sections 451, 294, 506-B, 166, 182 and 211 of IPC, but cursorily, mentioned that sufficient grounds for taking cognizance of these offence are made out. The impugned order does not reveal application of judicial mind on the material available on record.

35. Considering aforementioned aspects of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has committed patent illegality in taking cognizance and issuing the process against the petitioner without application of judicial mind on the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, trial of the petitioner on the charges of the alleged offence on the basis of faulty cognizance would be an abuse of process of the Court.

36. In totality of circumstances, the impugned complaint appears to be counterblast to the proceeding under SARFAESI Act undertaken by Bank Officials against son of complainant as also the criminal prosecution lodged by the Manager of Punjab National Bank against the respondent and his son wherein son of respondent was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. This complaint and consequential proceeding appears to be instituted with ulterior motive of wrecking vengeance on Bank officials due to aforementioned personal grudge.

37. Consequently, impugned order dated 27.03.2018 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia and consequential criminal proceedings, so far as it relates to the petitioner, are quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner stands discharged.

38. The petition and MCRC are accordingly allowed.