CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.739 OF 2001 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure -------- RAMESHWAR SINGH, Son of Late Sukhdeo Singh, resident of Chhoti Saraiyaganj, Dr. Ezazi Marg, Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur ----------------------- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Rupan Raut, Son of Late Bharosi Raut of Village- Sirauna, P.S. Chiraiya, District-East Champaran ------------ Opp.Parties. ---------- For the petitioner: S/Sri Shiv Nandan Prasad Singh, and Ashok Kumar, Advocates For Opp.Party No.2: S/Sri U.K.Shukla, Sr.Advocate Shakti Suman 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 14.10.1999 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar Motihari, East Champaran in Complaint Case no. 569 of 1999, Trial No.977 of 2000. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 471, 467, 468, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 filed a complaint in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari alleging therein that the petitioner with one Baleshwar Prasad had forged some documents, which was used in a complaint case, which was earlier lodged by the complainant against the 2 petitioner vide Complaint Case No.946 of 1995. On an allegation of forging document and using the same in Complaint Case No.946 of 1995, the aforesaid complaint was filed and after conducting enquiry, the learned Magistrate by its order dated 14.10.1999 took cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 471, 467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Sri Shivnandan Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while questioning the order of cognizance submits that under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the complaint was required to be filed after approval of the court, but in this case the complainant, who was complainant in the earlier case, had filed the present complaint petition. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that the document, which was produced by the petitioner in Complaint Case No.946 of 1995 was,although, perused by the learned trial court, but the same was not relied upon and thereafter in Complaint Case No.946 of 1995, the petitioner was finally held guilty and convicted and sentenced rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. It was submitted that in the present complaint petition itself, there was specific averment that the place of occurrence was the court of Sri V.N. Banerjee, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Motihari. It has further been submitted that the alleged occurrence had taken place long back in the year 1999 and, as such, after expiry of such a long time, the petitioner may not be directed to participate in the present proceeding. On the aforesaid grounds, it has been prayed to quash the order of 3 cognizance. 4. I have also heard Sri Uma Kant Shukla , learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party no.2 as well as Sri A.M.P.Mehta , learned Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 5. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. It is not in dispute that in the trial, in which it was alleged that the petitioner had produced forged documents, the petitioner has already been held guilty and sentenced rigorous imprisonment for two years. Besides this, the allegation was made that in a criminal proceeding before the court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, a forged document was alleged to have been used by the petitioner.The present petition has already remained pending before this Court for a long period. 6. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition and on 19.11.2001, while issuing notice to Opp.Party no.2, this Court had directed that further proceeding in Trial No.977 of 2000( C-569/99) pending in the court of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Motihari, East Champaran shall remain stayed. Subsequently, the case was admitted for hearing and it was directed that pending final hearing of this application, interim order dated 19.11.2001 shall remain operative. The order of stay is still continuing. 7. In view of the fact, particularly the fact that the petitioner has already been sentenced in earlier proceeding, for the 4 ends of justice, it would be appropriate to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the order dated 14.10.1999 passed in Complaint Case no. 569 of 1999, Trial No.977 of 2000 by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Motihari, East Champaran is hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed. Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 1st September,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)