CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17987 OF 2000 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure --------- Shivji Prasad Singh, Son of Late Sukhdeo Singh, resident of Village- Pakauli, P.S. Bidupur, District- Vaishali ---- Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----- Opp.Party -------------- For the petitioner: S/Sri Vindhya Keshari Kumar, Sr. Advocate Radheshyam Kumar, Advocate For the State : Sri A.M.P.Mehta, A.P.P. --------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 31.3.2000 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali in Complaint Case No.59 of 2000, Tr.No.1384 of 2000. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that on an allegation of making interpolation and forgery in the case record in Claim Case No.62 of 1995, an enquiry was conducted by the 4th Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Vaishali and thereafter an official complaint vide Complaint Case No.59 of 2000 was filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur. In the complaint case, it was alleged that a Claim case was filed under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act on behalf of one Kanti Devi, whose husband died in a road accident. The Claim 2 Petition was filed for an amount of Rs.10 lakhs. After filing of the complaint, it was reported by the office that on the claim of Rs.10 Lakhs, Rs. 10,000/- court fee was required. After deposit of Rs.5000/- i.e. half of the amount of the court fees, ad interim compensation would be paid. It was reported by Sheristedar that the date in the case was fixed to 20.8.1999 for hearing. On 20.8.1999 appearance was filed by the petitioner, who was an Advocate appearing on behalf of the claimant. It was alleged in the complaint petition that the petitioner took the record of Claim Case No.62 of 1995 from the Bench Clerk, namely, Sri Hasmat Heyat Khan and thereafter, the petitioner wrongly inspected the record and in the original plaint at paragraph 23 ( M) , he deleted one Zero from the digit of Rs.10,00,000/- by ball-pen and he also put his initial below the cutting, whereas in the original petition at paragraph-21 , it was mentioned as Rs.10,00,000/- in digit and also (ten lacks) in words. It was alleged that with a view to save Rs.9000/- court-fees amount, unauthorisedly cutting was made in the original record and the complainant was of the view that in the main record of Case No.62 of 1995, a forgery was committed . It was disclosed in the complaint petition that on such allegation against the petitioner, an enquiry vide Misc. Case No.2 of 1999 was registered .In the said enquiry, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, but he refused to accept the same. The show cause notice issued to the petitioner was also made part of the complaint petition. On the allegation of making forgery in the court record, a complaint was filed and the learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 31.3.2000 has taken cognizance of offences, as mentioned above. 3 3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance dated 31.3.2000 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali in Complaint Case No.59 of 2000, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition. 4. Sri Vindhya Keshari Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while challenging the order of cognizance, submits that the petitioner has committed no offence. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while referring to the supplementary affidavit, which was filed on 3.8.2010, submits that the petitioner for the purpose of making amendment in the plaint had filed an amendment petition on 20.8.1999 and subsequently, the amendment petition was allowed by the Addl.Claim Tribunal on 18.1.2000. Along with supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has brought on record the photo copy of the certified copy of order-sheet of Claim Case No.62 of 1995. During the course of argument, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has produced certified copy of the order-sheet as well as complaint petition. Let it be kept on record. It was submitted that once an amendment petition was allowed by the court, it cannot be considered that the petitioner had committed any offence. It was submitted that the petitioner being an Advocate was conducting the case of the claimant and due to typing error, the mistake in the claim amount had occurred , which was subsequently corrected by filing the amendment petition and the said amendment petition was subsequently allowed on 18.1.2000 by the Addl. Claim Tribunal . On the aforesaid ground, it was submitted that it cannot be said that any offence was committed by the petitioner. Accordingly, it was prayed that the order of 4 cognizance may be set aside. 5. Sri A.M.P.Mehta, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. It was submitted by Sri Mehta, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that after conducting enquiry, while instituting a Miscellaneous Case vide Misc.Case No.2 of 1999, the 4th Addl.District & Sessions Judge, had gathered sufficient materials showing commission of offence by the petitioner and, thereafter an official complaint vide Complaint Case No.59 of 2000 was filed .The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate after examining the complaint has rightly passed order of cognizance. It was submitted that the argument, which has been advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, can be looked into at the appropriate stage before the court below. It was argued that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petition may be rejected. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. While going through the ordersheet , which has been brought on record by filing a supplementary affidavit ,one thing is evident that whatever cutting or interpolation was made in the court record, was noticed by the learned 4th Addl.District & Sessions Judge in its order dated 20.8.1999 .It would be appropriate to quote the court’s order dated 20.8.1999, which is as follows: “20/8/99- dkafr nsoh ds rjQ ls muds vf/AoDrk Jh f’koth izlkn flag nzokjk gktjh nkf[ky fd;k x;k gS k Jh gLer gS;kr [kWk ls bl okn dk vfHAys[k ysdj ewy nkok okn ds iz’B la[;k 10 ds (,e )(1 ) esa vad 10 yk[k dk ’kqU; dsk dkVus ds 5 mijkUr Jh gler gS;kr [kWk dsk la’ksk/Au vkosnu i+= fn;k k tc Jh t;k rluhe Pnokjk 10,00,000 (nl yk[k) :i;s ij fn;s x;s izfrosnu ds laca/A esa muls iwNk x;k rsk bUgskuas xyr xyr vyQkt bLrseky djrs gq, dgk fd eSaus nkok 1,00,000 (,d yk[k) :i;s dk fd;k gSk tcfd oLrq fLFAfr blds foijhr gS vSkj osk U;k;ky; esa /Aedh nsrs gq, pys x;s k nkf[ky la’ksk/Au vkosnu i= ij foif{kx.k vkifRr izLrqr djsa k pqfd vf/AoDrk Jh f’koth izlkn flag us ewy vfHkys[k esa tkylkth fd;k gS bl otg ls muds fo:n/A izdh.kZ okn (QSktnkjh) esa ntZ dj muds uke dkj.k iPNk ekazxrs gq, uskfVl tkjh fd;k tk; k vfxze z dkjokbZ ,oza U;k; “’kqYd gsrq fnukad 25/ 9/ 99 dsk is’k fd;k” “ g0( ys[kkfir ) vLiLV 7. After going through the aforesaid order, it is evident that firstly digit of one zero was deleted from the plaint after taking the original record from the Bench Clerk and thereafter amendment petition was filed. So far as argument advanced by Sri Vindhya Keshari Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in respect of order dated 18.1.2000 allowing the amendment petition i.e. 18.1.2000 is concerned, I am of the view that the said order was passed much after the correction or cutting was already made in the original record. Moreover, it would not be advisable for this Court to give any opinion regarding commission or non-commission of offence in the present case. At the moment after examining the impugned order of cognizance, the Court is satisfied that it is not a fit case for exercising inherent 6 jurisdiction, which is to be exercised in exceptional and rarest or rare cases. Whatever plea has been taken before this Court can well be placed at the appropriate stage before the court below. Prima facie, I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order of cognizance. 8. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present case and the petition stands rejected. 9. In view of rejection of the present petition, interim order of stay dated 15.12.2000, whereby further proceeding in Complaint Case No.59 of 2000 (T.R.No 1384 of 2000) pending in the court of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur was directed to remain stayed, stands automatically vacated. 10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. Patna High Court, Patna Dated : the 13th September,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/ N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)