Harshit

In that case a complaint filed against the appelant who were bank officials was quashed against the court found that it was a
counter-blast to action taken by them in their official capacity for releasing the loan amount due from the complainant . On facts of
that case it was easy to hold that the complaint was clearly an abuse of judicial process and it was also found that averment and
allegations in complaint did not disclose commission of any offence by appellant. The magistrate has failed to apply his mind to the
case of the appellant and the high court had erred in under the vision at their to the basic facts. The actual situation in the present
case is quite otherwise. Relief was also placed on behalf of the respondent on the judgement in the case of state of Karnataka v.
Munni Swami and others 1977 2 SCC 699 in that case the accused persons pleaded for discharge before the sessions court which
was not expected but the high court quashed proceedings on the ground that there was not material on the record on the basis of
which any tribunal could resonably come to the conclusion that the accused were in any manner connected with the incidents
leading to the prosecution this court across with the view of the high court on the basis of peculiar facts of that case showing lay or
any committee from material which could create resonable likelihood for any offence in connection with attempted murder of the
complainant. That judgement also is of no help to the respondent herein in the light of allegation made in the complaint the
statement of the complainant on solemn formation and the CID report complaint supposed reliance and which was perused by the
learned magistrate. Thus appeals are therefore allowed the judgement and order under appeal passed by the high court is set aside
we also set aside the orders passed by the learned sessions court dated 30/11/2011 whereby summoning order was set aside in
accused against members 6 to 8 and against member 9.