IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.9853 of 2008 DEEPAK JAISWAL, S/O. LATE DEVENDRA PRASAD JAISWAL, RESIDENT OF C/39, HOUSING KANKARBAGH COLONY, P.S. – KANKARBAGH, P.O. – LOHIA NAGAR, DISTRICT – PATNA. ……………. PETITIONER Versus 1. State Of Bihar. 2. Anjai Kumar Sinha, S/o. Late Mohan Prasad Sinha. 3. Pravin Devi, W/o. Anjai Kumar Sinha. 4. Ruby Kumari, D/o. Anjai Kumar Sinha. 5. Surbi Kumari, D/o. Anjai Kumar Sinha. 6. Nikki, D/o. Anjai Kumar Sinha. 7. Renu, D/o. Anjai Kumar Sinha. 8. Vicky @ Vikash, S/o. Anjai Kumar Sinha. All resident of 304 Shanti Mohan Apartment, Free Press Lane, Rajendra Path, Patna, P.S – Gandhi Maidan, District – Patna. ----------- 03/ 07.05.2010 Heard the parties. This petition is directed against the order dated 28.01.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Patna by which he has rejected the petition under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C filed by the petitioner alleging therein that the document filed by the bailor of the accused persons are false and forged and as such legal action may be taken against the accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contend that the accused persons got anticipatory bail by the order of Sessions Judge, Patna and in pursuance of the bail the accused were released. The petitioner, however, 2 filed the petition under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C challenging that the identity card and land receipts of the bailor are forged and fabricated who also filed unimpeachable document to show that the document filed by the bailors were forged and fabricated. However, learned court below did not entertain the petition under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C and rejected the said petition on the ground that the Section 340 of the Cr.P.C empowers to take legal action against a person who is found liable after proper inquiry in this regard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though he has filed a petition under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C but with unimpeachable document to show that the documents filed by the bailors were forged and fabricated but the lower court did not proceed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the forged documents vitiate everything. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, however, stated that this petition under Section 482 is not maintainable. He has further contended that learned magistrate has observed that the matter of accepting the 3 bail bond is the matter between the court and the bailor and the accused and the petitioner has nothing to do and he is in any manner not going to be affected by this and nothing is going to affect on merit and the learned court has also observed that he did not find it proper to make inquiry. However, having regard to the merit, the matter is between the court and the bailor but the petitioner has filed the petition and it is the satisfaction of the court to proceed. However, having regard to the fact that since an appeal is provided against the order rejecting the petition under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C should have pursued that instead of filing a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C and under extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. However, having regard to the fact that since the remedy is available to the petitioner, I think that this Court is not required to entertain a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in such a matter and hence, the petition is hereby dismissed. Kundan (Gopal Prasad, J.)