The court emphasized that the essential ingredients of the offenses must be established, and continuation of proceedings without such establishment would be an abuse of the process of law.

1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 06.06.2013 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, in Criminal Revision No.19 of 2012, as well as the order dated 21.01.2012 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, in Complaint Case No.C-2312 of 2008/Tr. No.657 of 2012 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the said order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, under Section 245 Cr. P. C. was dismissed and it is held that there is no infirmity in the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, by which discharge petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

2. The prosecution case as per the complaint, in brief, is that complainant had family relationship with the accused persons. The accused persons (petitioner and her husband) had taken loan for solemnizing marriage of their daughter in the year 2006 from different persons on interest. The accused persons were unable to make payment of the interest amount and the principal amount remained the same. In the month of February, 2008, the accused persons came to the complainant and requested for loan of rupees seven lacs on the promise that they will return the same in 3-4 months. It is alleged in the Complaint Petition that the petitioner is a Lecturer in Bihar University and she is likely to get rupees four lacs as arrear of her salary and the rest amount would be arranged from other sources. The complainant gave rupees seven lacs on such assurance to the accused persons at her residence after withdrawing from LIC. The accused persons gave one cheque bearing no.AS/98-294915 dated 10.03.2008 of UCO Bank, Club Road, Muzaffarpur, of rupees seven lacs as guarantee. It is further alleged that rupees seven lacs was received by the husband of the petitioner, who handed over the money to the petitioner. The petitioner kept the money in her bag and handed over the cheque, which was signed by her husband, to the complainant. The accused persons did not return the money after three months. Thereafter, the complainant presented the cheque for its payment with consent of this petitioner and her husband in the first week of August, 2008, but the same was dishonoured by the bank. The complainant sent legal notice to the accused persons but they did not return the money and thereafter the case was filed. The complainant has alleged that the petitioner and her husband had made the habit of cheating persons in such a manner. Two other cases have also been filed against them; one by Sri Braj Kishore son of Sri Prabhu Narayan Thakur vide Complaint Case No.448 of 2008 and another by Mahesh Das son of late Rambriksh Das vide Complaint Case No.791 of 2008.

3. Learned Magistrate after examining the complainant and witnesses during enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P. C. found prima facie case against the petitioner and her husband for the offence under Sections 420 Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

4. Four witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant before Charge under Section 244 Cr. P. C. The petitioner along with her husband filed a petition for discharge under Section 245 Cr. P.C. on 18.05.2011, which was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, on 21.01.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No.19 of 2012 before the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, which was dismissed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, by order dated 06.06.2013.

5. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that none of the witnesses examined before Charge have alleged any specific overt act against the petitioner. The Complaint Petition also does not disclose any overt act against this petitioner. This petitioner has not issued any cheque under her signature. The cheque was issued by her husband, Rajeev Kumar Sinha, and continuance of criminal proceeding against this petitioner is abuse of process of t