- (1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned counsel appearing for the State.
(2.) THIS application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 23.2.2012 passed in Complaint Case bearing C/1 case no. 2964 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the then Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. Mr. P.P.N.Roy, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that it is the case of the complainant itself that the complainant had taken loan from the Sakchi Branch of State Bank of India, Jamshedpur under the Prime Minister Rojgar Yajna and that was to be paid in 60 equal instalments @ Rs.1923/ - but when the complainant failed to make payment of the instalments, a certificate proceeding got initiated at the instance of the petitioners in which notice was issued under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa (Public Demand Recovery) Act and only after coming to know that a certificate proceeding has been initiated against the complainant, the complainant lodged a complaint alleging therein that these two petitioners called the complainant in chamber and abused her in filthy language and had forced the complainant to sign over some format of the Bank and when the protest was made, she was pushed, as a result of which, she sustained injury which allegation, in the facts and circumstances, can be said to be actuated with malice for the reason that the Bank had proceeded to realize the amount from the complainant and therefore, the instant prosecution is fit to be quashed as this has been filed with mala fide purpose.
(3.) AS against this, Mr. K.P.Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submits that it is true that the complainant had taken loan from the Bank and EMI was fixed as Rs.1923/ - to be paid in 60 equal instalments but the complainant was depositing EMI @ Rs.2000/ - per month and thereby the complainant never defaulted in making payment of instalments, still a certificate proceeding was initiated against the complainant and when the complainant came to know about it, she approached to the petitioners and raised her grievances, upon it she was abused and was even pushed by the petitioners, as a result of which she fell down and sustained injury and in such event, the instant prosecution can never be said to have been actuated with malice and as such, the complaint case never warrants to be quashed.;