Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41509 of 2010 (5) dt.18-09-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.41509 of 2010 ====================================================== Mridula Kumari, W/O-Sri Chandra Bhanu Sharma, resident of village Choraut, P.O. Choraut, P.S.-Pupri District-Sitamarhi .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh (Advocate) For the State : Mr. U. Chand (A.P.P.) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 5 18-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the point of admission and, in my view, this petition can be disposed of on admission stage itself. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.07.2010 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi in Riga P.S. Case No. 27 of 2006 by which and whereunder he took the cognizance for the offences under [STATUTE] against the petitioner and others. It would appear from perusal of the record that Riga P.S. Case No. 27 of 2006 was instituted under the above stated sections against the petitioner and several other persons on account of alleged irregularities committed by petitioner and other accused in appointment of Anganbari Sewika. At the relevant Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41509 of 2010 (5) dt.18-09-2012 time, petitioner was working as supervisor and it is stated that she was also involved in the process of appointment of Anganbari Sewika. The aforesaid case was investigated by the police and after investigation police submitted final form showing insufficient evidence against the petitioner and some others but learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi took cognizance for the offences against the petitioner and others vide impugned order dated 23.07.2010. Without going into merit of the case, I would like to say that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed the impugned order in very routine manner without referring the paragraphs of the case diary on which he based his finding. Admittedly, police did not find any material against the petitioner but learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has stated in his impugned order that sufficient material is available against the petitioner but the aforesaid material has not been referred by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi in his impugned order. In view of the aforesaid circumstance, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.07.2010 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi in Riga P.S. Case No. 27 of 2006 is, hereby, quashed in respect of petitioner only and the matter is remitted back to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi with Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41509 of 2010 (5) dt.18-09-2012 direction to him to pass a fresh order giving his reasoning as to why he has differed with the findings of the police. It is made clear that if there is no material against the petitioner on the case diary, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi shall pass order in accordance with law. SHAHZAD/- (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, 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.