IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1231 of 2010 Ashok Kumar Singh, son of Sri Nand Narain Singh, resident of Mohalla-Mirchaibari, Katihar, P.S. & District- Katihar. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Sri T.S.Vijian, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, L.I.C. of India, Jogakshama Jeevan, Bima Marg, Mumbai. 3. Sri R.R. Das, Zonal Manager, L.I.C. of India, Eastern Zone, Kolkata. 4. Sri Basudeo Raju, Zonal Manager, L.I.C. of India, Central Eastern, Exhibition Road, Patna. 5. Sri Vivekanand Pradhan, Senior Divisional Manager, L.I.C. of India, Bhagalpur Division, Priyadarshni, Sakhichand Naya Bazar, Bhagalpur. 6. Shri Ashok Kumar Thakur, Branch Manager, L.I.C. of India, Branch Office, Katihar. ----------- 3. 09.08.2011 The complainant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 7.07.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Katihar in Complaint Case No.981/10 under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. by which the complaint case has been dismissed. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that petitioner is the agent of Life Insurance Corporation and working in Katihar Branch. He had filed CWJC No.7770/03 before the Patna High Court against the order dated 4.03.2003 passed by the Zonal Manager, Eastern Zone, Kolkata to revoke/ recall the agency termination order of the petitioner dated 10.11.2001 passed by the Senior Divisional Manager, Bhagalpur and the petitioner was attached with the Chitranjan Branch under Aasansol 2 Division with immediate effect. The revocation order passed by the Zonal Manager during the pendency of the writ petition no.2228/03, a statement was made before the Patna High Court that the termination of agency of the petitioner was revoked and on this basis, the writ petition was not pressed and it was dismissed vide order dated 26.03.2003 (Annexure-2). The petitioner-complainant obtained computer information time to time and it is still shown that the agency of the complainant is terminated. In CWJC No.7770/03, it was specific statement of the learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation that no penal action will be taken against the petitioner and on this stand of the Life Insurance Corporation, the petitioner and others withdrew the writ application. Further case of the petitioner is that the opposite party has made false and fabricated evidence in judicial proceeding of CWJC Nos.2228/03 and 7770/03 before the Patna High Court so far as the order dated 4.03.2003 is concerned. As such, the Zonal Manager of Life Insurance Corporation, Eastern Zone, Kolkata (opposite party no.3) has dishonestly induced the complainant-petitioner to believe that he has revoked or recalled the termination of the agency of the complainant- petitioner and thus, he has committed a serious offence. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that 3 the petitioner has filed a Complaint Case No.94/08 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar against the opposite party, which was sent to the Katihar police station for inquiry under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. After investigation, the police submitted final form in favour of the opposite party, which was also accepted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the protest petition in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 23.04.2008, which was registered as Complaint Case No.981/08 against the opposite party. The complainant has made statement on solemn affirmation and has also produced two witnesses, who have supported the prosecution case. In spite of that the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint petition under Section 203 Cr.P.C. According to the petitioner, the learned Magistrate has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition. He has further submitted that no complaint by court would be necessary and a private complaint would also be maintainable. In support of his contention, he has referred the decisions in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah & anr. Versus Meenakshi Marwah & anr. reported in 2005 (2) PLJR 236 and in the case of Sachida Nand Singh Versus The State of Bihar and anr. reported in 1998 (3) PLJR (SC) 13. 4 Learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the petitioner has produced a letter of the L.I.C. showing that the order terminating the agency of the petitioner has been revoked and he has been transferred from Katihar Branch to Chitranjan Branch. The order was issued by the Zonal Manager, Kolkata, but the petitioner has not joined at Chitranjan Branch at Aasansol. As such, the computer shows the termination of the agency of the petitioner. If the petitioner joins at Chitranjan Branch, his agency would revive and the computer will also display that he is an agent of Life Insurance Corporation at Chitranjan Branch. He has submitted that the order of termination of his agency was passed by the Senior Divisional Manager, Bhagalpur and the order of the Senior Divisional Manager, Bhagalpur has been revoked by the Zonal Manager, Kolkata and the order has been produced in the Patna High Court. In this view of the matter, no mis-statement or wrong statement has been made by any of the opposite parties at Katihar Branch. Therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Katihar has rightly dismissed the complaint petition. If any offence has been committed, it has been committed before the Patna High Court. Therefore, Patna High Court had the jurisdiction to revoke under Section 195 read with Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. and the petitioner has also no right to file such 5 petition. He has further submitted that the allegation to have made the forged document, it will come under the purview of Sections 467 and 463 of the I.P.C. and as such, the provisions of Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) Cr.P.C. will be attracted and the complaint petition will not be maintainable at the instance of the complainant/ petitioner. It is better to quote this provision: “Section 195 (1) :- No court shall take cognizance. (a) (ii) : Of any offence descried in Section 463, or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476 of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court”. It is also submitted that it is still the contention of the Life Insurance Corporation that the termination order passed by the Senior Divisional Manager, Bhagalpur has been revoked by the Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, Eastern Zone, Kolkata and the agency of the petitioner has been transferred from Life Insurance Corporation, Katihar Branch to Life Insurance Corporation, Chitranjan at Asansol Branch. Therefore, in the computer his agency is shown as terminated. Since, no forgery has been committed by the Life 6 Insurance Corporation before any court. Section 195 is not attracted and the learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly dismissed the complaint petition. After hearing the learned counsels for both the parties and on perusal of the materials on the record, it appears that during hearing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner and others, it came to the notice that the termination order of the petitioner and others passed by the Senior Divisional Manager, Bhagalpur have been revoked/recall by the Zonal Manager, Eastern Zone, Kolkata and the agency of the petitioner has been transferred from Katihar to Chitranjan, but the petitioner has not joined at Chitranjan. As such, there is no mis-statement or wrong statement or any forgery committed by the Life Insurance Corporation. Even if, it appears that any forgery or wrong statement that has been given by the learned counsel for the Life Insurance Corporation at Patna High Court during hearing of the aforesaid writ petition. In any view of the matter, no offence has been committed by the Life Insurance Corporation within the jurisdiction of Katihar. As such, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Katihar has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition and the complaint petition has rightly been rejected vide the impugned order. The aforesaid decisions in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah & anr. Versus Meenakshi Marwah & anr. 7 reported in 2005 (2) PLJR 236 and in the case of Sachida Nand Singh Versus The State of Bihar and anr. reported in 1998 (3) PLJR (SC) 13 do not help the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. In the result, this petition is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)