Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.17226 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Shambhu Sharan Pal S/O Late Kusheshwar Pal Resident Of Village- Dudhpura, P.O. & P.S.- Samastipur, District- Samastipur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhruba Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pancha Nand Pandit, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 06-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In this case, petitioner is challenging the order dated 11th March 2011 by which the court below has rejected the discharge petition. It appears from the record that Tajpur (Bangra) P.S.Case No. 291 of 2006 was registered for the offences [STATUTE] that the petitioner obtained appointment through forged certificate of Dresser. The court below has considered the plea advanced on behalf of the petitioner and the court while passing the order has also considered the argument that the Police did not examine the genuineness of the documents produced by the petitioner and found that materials were available against the petitioner for framing of charge and, accordingly, dismissed the petition. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17226 of 2011 (2) dt.06-09-2012 2 / 2 2 Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the order dated 3rd February 2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in A.B.P.No. 733 of 2006 where the court had given direction for production of his supporting documents before the I.O. to examine the genuineness of the same. He further submits that though the petitioner produced the documents but the Police did not take pain to examine the same and submitted charge-sheet on 28th February 2007 vide Annexure-7 to this petition. Counsel for the State has submitted that at the stage of framing of charge or considering the discharge petition, the court below was not required to go for roving and fishing enquiry, rather the court has to make enquiry as to whether there are materials for strong suspicion or not. He further submitted that the court has not acted illegally rather passed the order in accordance with law. Having considered the rival contention of the parties, this Court is of the view that at the stage of discharge, the court has rightly not gone into fishing or roving enquiry and this Court does not find any error in the order impugned. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with the liberty to raise all the points during the trial. Jay/- (Shivaji Pandey, 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.