Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.5029 of 2011 ====================================================== Ashok Kumar Thakur @ Ashok Thakur, son of Indra Mohan Thakur, resident of Village- Dummar, P.S. Falka, District-Katihar .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Bindeshwari Sharma, son of Late Shibu Sharma, resident of Village- Dummar, P.S. Falka ( Pothis), District-Katihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER ------------------ 4 30-10-2012 Heard Sri Bhola Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and Sri P.K.Jaipuriyar, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of the complainant/Opp.Party no.2. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 16.04.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Katihar, whereby the revision preferred by Opp.Party no.2 vide Cr. Revision No.73 of 2007 was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the learned Magistrate for hearing the parties afresh and for passing order of cognizance. The revision was preferred against order dated 26.03.2007 passed in Complaint Case No.2170 of 2005, whereby the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of offence under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5029 of 2011 (4) dt.30-10-2012 2 / 3 2 petitioner has further prayed for quashing of entire prosecution including the order dated 16.04.2010 passed by the revisional court. In prayer portion , no specific prayer has been made for quashing of order dated 27.12.2010 passed in Complaint Case No.2170 of 2005, whereby the learned Magistrate after the case was remitted back by the revisional court has passed afresh order of cognizance under [STATUTE] . It was submitted by Sri Bhola Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner that the revisional court was not having any authority to usurp the power of the Magistrate and direct the Magistrate to take cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] . He has further argued that there is no material on record to take cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] . Sri P.K.Jaipuriyar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party no.2 submits that the order, which has been impugned in the present case i.e. order dated 16.04.2010 passed by the revisional court, has already attained its finality due to the reason that after the order of remand, the learned Magistrate has passed order of cognizance on 27.12.2010. Moreover, no specific prayer has been made for quashing of the said order. Be that as it may, the Court is of the opinion that the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5029 of 2011 (4) dt.30-10-2012 3 / 3 3 revisional court’s order has already attained its finality and, as such, no order can be passed in respect of the order of the revisional court. So far as the question of application of either Section 417 or Section 420 is concerned, those facts can be examined at the stage of charge and not at this stage and, as such, there is no point for passing any favourable order. The petition stands dismissed. If so advised, the petitioners may raise all the points at the appropriate stage before the court below. NKS/- (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.