Criminal Miscellaneous No.22148 OF 1999 ------ In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ----- SUDAMA PANDIT son of Ram Chandra Pandit, resident of village-Rampurwa, P.S.-Harsidhi, Dist.-East Champaran …… ……Petitioner Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2..Ambika Pandit son of Ram Chandra Pandit, resident of village-Rampurwa, P.S.-Harsidhi, Dist.-East Champaran …… …..Opp. Parties. ------ For the petitioner: Mr.Yogendra Prasad Singh & Mr.Arun Kumar For opp. Party No.2:Mr.Pramod Kumar Pandey For the State: Mr.G.P.Jaiswal, Sr.Advocate. ------ 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 the order dated 25.2.1999 passed by Sri B.N.Sharan, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari (East Champaran) in Case No.1730 of 1998/Trial No.607 of 1999. 2. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2, who is own brother of the petitioner, filed a complaint vide Complaint Case No.1730 of 1998 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari disclosing therein that in between the complainant and the petitioner some cases were pending in the competent court. It was alleged that the petitioner, who was headmaster of the Government Primary School, Bhusahan, Police Station-Sangrampur, Dist.-East Champaran, and in the capacity of headmaster he was keeping all the records of the school with him. It was alleged that on the date of occurrence i.e. 2 5.7.1995 and 8.6.1995 though the petitioner put his signature on the attendance register of the school, he was physically present on 5.7.1995 in the court of Sub.Divisional Magistrate and had signed on personal release bond there. Similarly, on 8.6.1995 he had appeared in a proceeding which was pending under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the petitioner had also filed his attendance in the said proceeding. It was alleged that the petitioner had committed an offence of interpolation and forgery in the attendance register. After being examined on solemn affirmation, the complainant also produced three witnesses in support of the complaint case. After examining the materials available on the record, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 25.2.1999 took cognizance of the offences under sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Mr. Yogendra Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the present complaint petition was filed maliciously. He submits that several litigations were pending in between the petitioner and the complainant and due to vengeance the present complaint petition has been filed. Accordingly, he has prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance and all subsequent proceedings on the ground of malicious prosecution. 4. Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. 5. Mr. G.P.Jaiswal, Senior Counsel appearing on 3 behalf of the State opposing the prayer of the petitioner submits that for commencing of criminal prosecution it is not necessary and mandatory that only an aggrieved person can set the law into motion. He submits that since the petitioner has committed forgery in the official record and sufficient materials were brought on record at the enquiry stage, the learned Magistrate had no option but to take cognizance of the offences as mentioned above and the learned Magistrate has rightly passed the order of cognizance dated 25.2.1999. He further submits that the points which have been raised by the petitioner can be examined at an appropriate stage. Accordingly, he submits that this is not a stage to examine the defence of the accused/petitioner. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also examined the materials available on the record as well as the order of cognizance. Of course, the complainant was having no connection with the affairs of the school but at the same time the fact regarding commission of offence was noticed by him and thereafter he had brought the same to the notice of the learned Magistrate by way of filing the present complaint. The learned Magistrate at the enquiry stage, which appears from the impugned order, had examined the attendance register as well as certified copy of certain documents and after being satisfied with the commission of offence had passed the impugned order. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and also agreeing with the submission of Mr. Jaiswal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State, I am of the 4 view that the defence which has been taken by the petitioner at this stage may not be looked into or examined by this court that too while exercising power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, it is open for the petitioner to raise all such defence at the stage of charge. 8. I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. 9. It is made clear that if at the stage of charge such petition is filed by the petitioner, it is expected that the learned Magistrate without being prejudiced by this order will examine the same and will pass order in accordance with law. 10. In view of rejection of this petition, the interim order of stay dated 30.9.1999 stands automatically vacated. 11. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. Patna High Court The 30th April, 2010 NAFR/Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)