IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30162 of 2009 1. Ramesh Das, S/O-Late Garib Das, resident of village-Daulatpur, P.S.-Bath, District-Bhagalpur 2. Kailash Prasad Singh, S/O-Late Satya Narayan Singh, resident of village- Khanpur English, P.S.-Bath, District-Bhagalpur 3. Shashi Nath Jha, S/O-Late Guletan Jha, Resident of village-Tardiha, P.S.- Madhepura, District-Madhubani 4. Chaturi Pashwan, S/O-Lelho Paswan, resident of village-Hario, P.S.-Bihpur, District-Navgachia ……..petitioners. Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 02 17.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the point of admission. Petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the cognizance order dated 07.07.2009 passed in Bath P.S. Case No. 32 of 2008 by which and whereunder learned court below has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioner no. 1 was Mukhiya, petitioner no. 3 was Executive Agent, petitioner no. 4 was Panchayat Secretary of the concerned Panchayat whereas petitioner no. 2 was Munshi of petitioner no. 1. It would appear from perusal of the first information report that allegedly, petitioners got clear forged bills and accordingly, they misappropriated the government money. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, as a matter of fact, petitioners were entrusted to fill earth in Barua river 2 and they did their work in accordance with rule but after measurement, the Junior Engineer wrongly mentioned Gahra river in place of Barua river and on account of the aforesaid confusion, the informant lodged this case and police also without verifying the real facts submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners. In my view, the above stated contention relates to factual aspect which requires deeper investigation and it is not possible at this stage to give any finding in respect of the aforesaid contention. Since the charge-sheet has been submitted and cognizance has already been taken against the petitioners, I am of the opinion that there is no need to interfere into the impugned order. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed on admission stage itself. However, petitioners may raise their all pleas at the time of framing of the charge and if they do so, the learned court below shall consider their pleas on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. SHAHZAD ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)