R.R. Prasad, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Opp. Parties No. 2 and learned Counsel appearing for the State.

2. This Cr. Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 15.05.2006, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 467 of 2005 whereby and whereunder leaned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad having been found prima facie case true under Sections 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, summoned the petitioners to face trial.

3. The facts giving rise this application is that the Complainant-Opp. Party No. 2 lodged a complaint case bearing No. 467 of 2005 stating therein that he being a Tax Daroga working under the N.A.C. (Notified Area Committee), Sindri was entrusted with a job of construction of P.C.C. Road from R.K. More Sindri to B.I.T. Club Sindri and for that purpose, he purchased certain construction materials from the petitioner No. 2 for which payment was made to him under the receipt from time to time, but after the job was over, the petitioner No. 2 in connivance with petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 prepared a forged paper, on the basis of which, they claimed Rs. 37,800/- due to be paid to them by the complainant and the other day they came to the Office, abused him and also extended threat and thus, it has been alleged that the accused persons by their acts put obstruction in discharge of their duties and also abused him and thereby committed offence under Sections 467, 468, 420, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Thereupon, statement of the complainant was recorded on solemn affirmation and the matter was taken up for inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, the court having been found prima facie true under Sections 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioners.

5. Being aggrieved with that, the petitioners have moved this Court and has filed this Cr. Miscellaneous Petition.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the entire allegations are false and as a matter of fact, certain materials were supplied to the complainant, when he was engaged in construction of a road but payment of the same was not made, though petitioner No. 2 repeatedly asked for the same and when payment was not made, the matter was reported to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sindri as well as Officer-in-Charge, Sindri, regarding non-payment of the legal due to him by the complainant and after making inquiry, the Police submitted report before the court, stating therein that it is true that the payment was not made to the petitioner No. 2 and in that event the petitioners have threatened the Opp. Party No. 2 and as such entire allegations what has been leveled in the complaint are not only false but also malicious and has been lodged with a view to escape liability from making payment to the petitioner No. 2.

7. The other limb of the submission is that the allegations leveled in the complaint as well as statement made by the complainant on solemn affirmation, do not constitute offence either under Sections 353 or 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

8. As against this, learned Counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No. 2 submits that the allegations leveled in the complaint do constitute offences under Sections 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, as it is specific case that the accused persons did abuse and put obstruction in the discharge of the official duty and as such order taking cognizance does not warrant to be interfered with by this Court.

9. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, the only question falls for consideration as to whether the allegation is made in the complaint as well as statement made by the complainant on solemn affirmation does constitute offence either under Sections 353 or 506 of the Indian Penal Code?

10. Before going further in the matter, provision as contained under Section 353 of