Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12566 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.12566 of 2010 ====================================================== Krishna Mohan Prasad .... .... Petitioner Versus State of Bihar & Anr .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Ghosarvey, advocate Mr Anand Kumar, Advocate For opposite party 2 : Mr. Ashok Kr.Verma, Advocate Mr Nagesh Pratap Singh, Advocate For the State: Mrs Madhuri Lata A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 7 06-11-2012 1. This petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the order dated 29.10.2009 passed by Sri Hareram Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, Siwan in Complaint Case no. 2208/2009 by which and whereunder he, having found prima facie case under [STATUTE] , ordered to issue summons against the petitioner and co-accused Santosh Pd Gupta. 2. The brief fact, which lies to file this quashing petition, is that opposite party no.2, namely, Arbind Kr. Singh filed the above stated Complaint Case no. 2208/2009 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan against the petitioner and co-accused Santosh Pd Gupta alleging therein inter-alia that according to rules and regulation of the Bihar Gram Katchary (Employment, Service Conditions and Duties) Rules, 2007, he was appointed on the post of Nyaya Mitra on 29.2.2008 in Gram Panchyat Goria Kothi district Siwan and after appointment, he submitted all the relevant documents Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12566 of 2010 2 relating to his appointment to the concerned block office and participated in training programme at district as well as sub divisional level which was continued for the period from 11.6.2009 to 13.6.2009. During the training period, he came to know that Panchyatwise honorarium list had been prepared by the block office but he surprised to see that there was cutting mark on the honorarium relating to opposite party no.2. On 14.6. 2009 he went to block office to get enquired from the petitioner who was working there as Block Development Officer. The petitioner took 15 days’ time to examine the complain of opposite party no.2 and again after 15 days when he went to the block office then the petitioner and co–accused disclosed that relevant certificates of opposite party no.2 were missing from the record of block office and after that opposite party no.2 immediately handed over photo stat copy of his certificates to the petitioner and co–accused and claimed his honorarium. The petitioner and co– accused again asked opposite party no.2 to come after one week. Furthermore, it is alleged that again on 4.7.2009 when opposite party no.2 contacted the petitioner and other accused, the petitioner disclosed that certificates of opposite party no.2 were not available in the file and for reconstruction of file, the petitioner directed opposite party no.2 to contact with co–accused and when he contacted co– accused, he demanded Rs 15,000/- for reconstruction of his file. Opposite party no.2 made protest and again contacted the petitioner but the petitioner became furious and abused and made derogatory comments against him and after that opposite party no.2 filed the above stated complaint case. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12566 of 2010 3 3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan transferred the complaint case for enquiry and trial to the court of Sri Hareram Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, Siwan and the transferee court having conducted an enquiry under section 202 of the Cr.P.C passed the impugned order dated 29.10.2009 which is under challenge before this court in this petition. 4. Notices were issued to opposite party no.2 by this court and in pursuance of the aforesaid notice, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 denying almost all the contents of petition of the petitioner. 5. Supplementary affidavit is filed on behalf of the petitioner bringing certain documents on record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that two fold allegations have been levelled against petitioner and other accused. Firstly, it is stated that honorarium was not paid to opposite party no.2 and secondly, it is stated that relevant documents of opposite party no.2 got misplaced from the file. It is contended by him that, no doubt, the petitioner was working as Block Development Officer at the relevant time but according to the rule of the Bihar Gram Katchary (Employment, Service Conditions and Duties) Rules, 2007, the contractual amount of Nyaya Mitra is paid by the joint signatures of sarpanch and upsarpanch on the basis of absentee report and if honorarium of opposite party no.2 has not been paid, then Sarpanch and upsarpanch of the concerned Gram Panchayat are responsible for that because the aforesaid honorarium had not to be paid by the petitioner. It is further contended by him that annexure 3 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12566 of 2010 4 to the petition shows that District Magistrate, Siwan vide his letter no. l15 III dated 28.2.2009 gave guidelines to all Block Development Officers of the district Siwan in respect of making payment of honorarium to Nyaya Mitras and in the aforesaid letter, it has clearly been mentioned that contractual amount of Nyaya Mitra would be paid on the basis of actual work done by concerned Nyaya Mitra and Block Development Officer would withdraw the allotted amount from the treasury and would deposit the aforesaid amount in the accounts of Nyaya Mitras through bank draft. It is further contended by him that, as a matter of fact, Sarpanch of the concerned Gram Panchyat reported that no work was done by opposite party no.2 between 11.6.2009 to 13.6.2009 and, therefore, it was not possible for the petitioner to withdraw allotted amount and

Applicable IPC Section: 467

Statute Text:
Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code. Forgery of a valuable security, will or authority to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive any money, etc. Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.