Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.38240 of 2010 ====================================================== Sri Krishna Ram, son of Jhagaru Ram, resident of village Dharahara Sota, P.S. Kateya, District Gopalganj( Bihar) .... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Umesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap, Addl. P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 3 07-05-2012 Heard. The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 invoking its inherent powers for quashing the order dated 16.4.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj, in Trial No. 1795 of 2010 arising out of Kateya P.S. Case No. 5 of 2003 dated 15.1.2003, whereby prayer of the petitioner for his discharge in terms of Section 239 Cr. P.C. has been rejected. The present criminal prosecution has been registered against the petitioner and other accused persons by the District Welfare Officer, Gopalganj for offences under [STATUTE] . There is an allegation that an amount of Rs. 3,74,115/- sanctioned by the Central Government for the benefits of Scheduled Castes Residential Middle school, Kateya has been misappropriated by the petitioner and others by forging certain documents. The petitioner has been specifically named in the F.I.R. as an accused. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38240 of 2010 (3) dt.07-05-2012 2 / 2 2 The matter was thoroughly investigated and on close of investigation charge sheet was submitted for offences alleged. Consequently, cognizance has been taken of the offences. A petition under Section 239 Cr. P.C. filed for discharge of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Magistrate. Hence, the present application. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to a Complaint Petition filed by one Mohan Ram submits that the petitioner is entitled to be discharged from the case, as the allegation in the aforesaid complaint petition was found to be incorrect during the course of enquiry/trial. After having heard the parties, this Court finds that the present petition on behalf of the petitioner and the prayer made on his behalf on the grounds mentioned therein are completely misconceived. Under the scheme of Section 239 Cr. P.C., defence of the accused person is not required to be taken into consideration. Under the mandate of Section 239 Cr. P.C. upon consideration of the police report and documents submitted therewith under section 173 Cr. P.C., if the learned Magistrate comes to a finding that charge against the accused is groundless, only in that circumstance after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties the accused can be discharged. The probable defence of the accused persons or other materials cannot be looked into at that stage. In the circumstances of the case, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court. Consequently, this application fails and is accordingly dismissed. Kanth/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, 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.