Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.50299 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. Kamlesh Kumar Singh @ Kamal Kumar Singh 2. Shambhu Prasad Singh Both sons of Balmiki Narayan Singh, residents of Village- Sahaspur, Tole-Madauli, P.S. Jalley, District-Darbhanga .... .... Petitioners Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mr. Shiv Narayan Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER -------------------- 4 22-02-2012 Heard Sri Prem Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Dr. Indiwar Kumari, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. 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 25.09.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga in Jalley P.S. Case No.32 of 2004, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] differing with the police report. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the basis of fardbeyan of one Most. Yashoda Devi, an F.I.R. vide Jalley P.S. Case No. 32 of 2004 was registered for the offence under [STATUTE] against three accused persons. After registering the F.I.R. the police investigated the same. However, during the investigation, allegation made by the informant was found untrue and, as such, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50299 of 2008 (4) dt.22-02-2012 2 / 2 2 final report was submitted on 30.06.2005. In the final report, it was indicated that since the informant was a lady, no report for prosecuting her under Sections 182/2011 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was being filed. After receipt of the final report, the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order, whereby cognizance under [STATUTE] has been taken. It is not in dispute that after submission of the final report, the learned Magistrate was authorized to take cognizance differing with the police report, but at the same time, while differing succinctly reason was required to be assigned. Perusal of the order makes it clear that even succinctly no reason has been assigned in the order, whereby cognizance under [STATUTE] has been taken, whereas F.I.R. was lodged under [STATUTE] . In view of the fact that no reason has been assigned, while taking cognizance after differing with the police report, the Court is of the opinion that the order impugned may not be allowed to continue. Accordingly, the order dated 25.09.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga in Jalley P.S. Case No.32 of 2004 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below to reconsider the mater and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. With above observation, the petition stands allowed. NKS/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 471

Statute Text:
Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Using as genuine a forged document which is known to be forged. Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document.