Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 24570 of 2010 ================================================== Tarkeshwar Prasad Son of Ramesh Kumar Das, Resident of Village – Udlabani, P.S. Kankomath, Distt. Dhanbad. .... .... Petitioner. Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party. ================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 4. 16-08-2012 Heard Mr. Salauddin Ahmad Khan, learned counsel, who was assisted by Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Uday Chandra Prasad, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. 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 23.12.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna, in Gardanibagh P.S. Case No. 15 of 2004, G. R. No. 134 of 2004. By the said order, learned Magistrate has framed charges under [STATUTE] . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, having qualified in the competitive examination, got his admission in M.I.T., Muzaffarpur. He also passed 1st year examination and thereafter, on suspicion, his writing was examined by the Board. However, one of the members of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24570 of 2010 (4) dt.16-08-2012 2 / 4 2 Board differed that no offence was committed by the petitioner. However, at subsequent stage, the answer-sheet and admitted writing and signature of the petitioner was sent to the handwriting expert and thereafter, opinion was obtained, suggesting that answer-sheet was not written by the petitioner and thereafter, an F.I.R. was lodged, vide Gardanibagh P. S. Case No. 15 of 2004 for the offences under [STATUTE] . The police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet and thereafter, order of cognizance was also passed. In the present case, charges have already been framed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of material on record, there was no material for framing of the charges and only on suspicion, charges have been framed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied on the opinion of the Board and on said opinion, he has prayed for quashing of the order, whereby charges have been framed. In this case, fact remains that F.I.R. was lodged in the year 2004. After investigation, materials were collected showing involvement of the petitioner. Charge-sheet was submitted. Thereafter, learned Magistrate took cognizance of offences and finally charges were framed by the impugned order. Once charges have been framed, it is considered that trial has already Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24570 of 2010 (4) dt.16-08-2012 3 / 4 3 commenced. In view of the fact that trial has already commenced, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with the order, whereby, charges have been framed. The plea, which has been taken by the petitioner, can be taken at defence stage. At least, at this stage, it would be difficult for this Court to interfere with the impugned order, that too while exercising power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is to be exercised sparingly and in rarest of the rare cases. I do not find any ground to consider the case as exceptional or rarest of the rare cases, for interference. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the time of argument, informs the Court that after framing of the charge, no progress has taken place. In view of the fact that charge has already been framed in the year 2004, while dismissing the present petition, it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case expeditiously so that trial may come to its logical end without unnecessary delay. It is desirable to direct the court below to conclude the trial within a period of nine (09) months from the date of production/receipt of copy of this order. At the same time, the concerned Superintendent of Police Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24570 of 2010 (4) dt.16-08-2012 4 / 4 4 is directed to render all assistance to the court below for early disposal of the case, as and when, required by the court below. The prosecution shall taken step for producing witnesses. The learned Magistrate, while proceeding with the case, will proceed at least twice in a week. With above direction, t he petition stands dismissed. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Patna. 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.