The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to interfere with the order of cognizance in cases of malicious prosecution to protect individuals from unnecessary harassment and to secure the ends of justice.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 2.7.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Begusarai in Complaint Case No. 1928(C)/2008 whereby and whereunder the court below has taken cognizance for offences under sections 420, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is a peculiar case where the customer of the bank has instituted a case against the Bank Manger for exerting undue pressure and obtained a signature with a statement of promising to return money to Bank including forcefully taking Rs. 1,50,000/- from the customer ( O.P. No. 2) for the Bank.

4. In this case it appears that O.P.No. 2 is a customer of U.C.O. Bank, I.O.C. Branch, Begusarai. It appears that the complainant had presented a cheque vide cheque No. 965623 dated 1/6/2008 of Rs. 3,20,000/- for crediting the amount in his account. It appears that the said cheque was issued on 1.6.2008 by Umesh Kumar Gupta and the same was presented by the complainant on 29.7.2008 in U.C.O. Bank, I.O.C. Branch, Begusarai, the bank credited the same in his account on 1/8/2008. The O.P. No. 2 withdrew the said amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 4/8/2008 and on the same day at about 8.30 P.M. the petitioner along with Umesh Kumar Gupta who had issued the cheque went to the house of the complainant, apprised him about the return of the said cheque dishonoured and requested to return the said amount of money to Bank and in pursuance thereof complainant returned Rs. 1,50,000/- and did not pay rest amount on the plea that he had already paid the said amount to the person from whom he had taken loan but promised to return the same to the Bank on 5/8/2008 by 12.00 Noon. The complainant in plain paper recorded this statement in his handwriting along his signature and date in presence of his nephew, Sanjay Choudhary. It appears, the O.P. No. 2 did not stand to his commitment, ultimately the Bank wrote letters dated 5/8/2008 and 12/8/2008 to return the rest amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-, as the cheque that was deposited by him had been returned by the drawee bank on account of insufficient fund. It also appears from the record that the Bank issued the legal notice on 19.8.2008 and reminder vide letter dated 27.8.2008 to return the rest amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- otherwise the Bank would have to take necessary action against the complainant. It also appears from the record, the Bank filed Money Suit No. 11/2009 through the Senior Manager, U.C.O. Bank against the O.P. No. 2 where full facts have been mentioned and the relief has been sought against the O.P. No. 2 to pass a decree of Rs. 1,50,000/- along with interest @ 15% till the realization of entire amount.

5. It appears that on receipt of the legal notice, the O.P. No. 2 filed present complaint petition where he has stated that he had presented a cheque vide cheque No. 965623 dated 1/6/2008 of Rs. 3,20,000/- in the said bank on 29.7.2008 and the said amount was credited to his account, he (the O.P. No.2) withdrew the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 4/6/2008 and on the same day he returned loan amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the person from whom he had taken money. Allegation has been made, the petitioner, accused No. 1 along with 10-12 unknown persons entered into the house, asked the complainant, O.P. No. 2 to return the money which was withdrawn by him whereupon the O.P. No. 2 explained the situation but on their insistence, the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was returned to the petitioner No. 1 on the sympathetic consideration of petitioner might not be loosing job of the bank with a promise to credit the said amount of money to his account. In the complaint petition it has been alleged that the petitioner, accused No. 1 is a Senior Branch Manager took out plain paper, prepared receipt of Rs. 1,50,000/- recorded his statements that he paid Rs. 1,50,000/- and later on he would return rest amount. The O.P. No. 2 refused to sign the