Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 25933 of 2010 ================================================== 1. Tarkeshwar Singh, Son of Late Raghunath Singh resident of village- Rampur Khajuria, P.S. Dumariaghat, District- East Champaran at present resident of Mohalla Beli Sarai, P.S. Motihari Town, District-East Champaran. 2. Panna Lal Sah, Son of Late Ganesh Sah, resident of village- SheoRajpur, P.S. Nautan, District-West Champaran at present Assistant Engineer, Zila Parishad, P.S. Motihari Town, District- East Champaran. .... .... Petitioners. Versus The State of Bihar. .... .... Opposite Party. ================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 4. 03-09-2012 Heard Sri Sunil Kumar No. III, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shyam Bihari Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to make correction in paragraph no. 1 of the petition to the extent of mentioning [STATUTE] . It was submitted that due to inadvertence that provision was not mentioned in paragraph no. 1. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 21.04.2010 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, East Champaran, in Tr. No. 3078 of 2010, arising out Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25933 of 2010 (4) dt.03-09-2012 2 / 4 2 of Kalyanpur P. S. Case No. 69 of 2000. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 409, 419, 420, 406, 120(B) & 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Sri Sunil Kumar No. III, learned counsel for the petitioners, while pressing the impugned order, submits that though petitioner no. 1 was made accused in the F.I.R., none of the aggrieved person has made any complaint or filed any case before the police. It was alleged that they have made payment to petitioner no. 1. So far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned, it was submitted that during investigation, he was named as accused and thereafter, charge-sheet was submitted. He submits that even during investigation, the persons, regarding whom it is alleged that they had paid money to the petitioner for allotment of land for the purposes of construction of shop, have not supported the prosecution case. In sum and substance, it was submitted that in absence of any complaint made by aggrieved persons, no offence is made out against the petitioners nor it can be said that any public money was misappropriated. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25933 of 2010 (4) dt.03-09-2012 3 / 4 3 Besides hearing the parties, I have also perused the F.I.R. as well as order of cognizance. In the F.I.R., there is specific allegation, so far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned that while he was posted as ‘Steno’ in Zila Parishad, Motihari, he had taken money from number of persons in the garb of allotment of land to them. On such allegation, F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioners and after investigation, complicity of petitioner no. 2 also surfaced and police submitted charge-sheet. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate, after perusal of the case diary and materials on record, has passed the order of cognizance. After going through the F.I.R., the Court is satisfied that specific cognizable offence is made out, for which, F.I.R. under [STATUTE] was registered. Since during investigation, name of petitioner no. 2 had also transpired and as such, while submitting charge-sheet, offence under Sections 406, 120(B) & 34 of the Indian Penal Code was also added. Prima facie, on perusal of the impugned order, the Court is satisfied that learned Magistrate has committed no error in passing the order of cognizance. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25933 of 2010 (4) dt.03-09-2012 4 / 4 4 I do not find any ground for interference with the impugned order. The petition stands dismissed. It goes without saying that this order may not prejudice the petitioners during the proceeding before the court below. Anay (Rakesh Kumar, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 420

Statute Text:
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating and there by dishonestly inducing delivery of property, or the making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.