Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.38283 of 2008 ===================================================== Mahesh Prasad, son of Sri Mohi Prasad, resident of Village-Bishunpur Hashar, P.O. Pinjora, P.S. Kako, District-Jehanabad. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Deputy Accountant General (Admin & Pension), office of the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna-1. .... .... Opposite Parties. ===================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma & Mrs. Abhanjali, Advocates. For the State : Mrs. Pronoti Singh, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. S.M. Ehtisham, Advocate. ===================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA CAV ORDER --------------- 8 24-02-2012 The petitioner has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 29.7.2008 passed in Trial No.1306 of 2008 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad, rejecting the petition dated 11.7.2008 filed on behalf of the accused-petitioner under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge. 2. In brief, the case is that on the basis of the written report of the informant, U.S. Prasad, Deputy Accountant General (Admn. and Pension) of the office of the Accountant General (A & E), Bihar, Patna, Jehanabad P.S. Case No.463 of 2004 dated 4.12.2004 was instituted under [STATUTE] . It has been alleged by the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38283 of 2008 (8) dt.24-02-2012 2 / 4 2 informant in his written report that during treasury inspection it was noticed that one Rajendra Prasad Roy fraudulently withdrew government money to the tune of Rs.2,69,662/- as the son of one Late Sakaldeep Singh by presenting false pre-audit bills. 3. On investigation, the police submitted the chargesheet against the five accused including the petitioner, Mahesh Prasad, under [STATUTE] . Accordingly, the cognizance of the offence under the aforesaid Sections was taken on 27.10.2005 against the chargesheeted five accused including the petitioner. Thereafter, the accused-petitioner, Mahesh Prasad and the other accused, Uma Shankar Prasad, filed the petitions respectively on 11.7.2008 and 30.5.2008 under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge in the court of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad, who, after hearing the petitions, rejected both the petitions through the impugned order dated 29.7.2008. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made submission that the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, illegally rejected the petition of the petitioner filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge without appreciating the evidence available in the case diary, as the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and in course of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38283 of 2008 (8) dt.24-02-2012 3 / 4 3 investigation, only suspicion and doubt has been raised against him. 5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that while the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. but in course of investigation, as would appear specially in paragraphs- 164 and 165 of the case diary, it has come that on the introduction of the accused-petitioner, Sudarshan Singh, an advocate, identified one person as Rajendra Prasad Roy as the deponent before the Public Notary, Arjun Narayan Sharma, who, thereafter, put his signature on affidavit as Public Notary. 6. From perusal of the case diary, which is upto paragraphs-195, it appears that while the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. but his name has come, later on, in course of investigation in paragraphs-164 and 165 of the case diary, in which it has been stated that on the introduction of one person by the accused-petitioner as Rajendra Prasad Roy, Sudarshan Singh, an advocate, identified him as the deponent before the Public Notary, Arjun Narayan Sharma, who, thereafter, put his signature as the Public Notary on the affidavit. 7. At the time of framing of the charge, the Magistrate/court is only required to see whether prima facie case is made out against the accused or not. At that time, the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38283 of 2008 (8) dt.24-02-2012 4 / 4 4 Magistrate/court is not required to examine the materials/evidence available in the case diary meticulously like as trial for the conviction or acquittal. 8. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 29.7.2008 passed in Trial No.1306 of 2008 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad, amounting to abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, I find no merit in this application and the same is dismissed. P.S./- (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 419

Statute Text:
Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating by personation. Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.