IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40784 of 2007 Abdul Qaium Khan @ Md.Qaium, Son of Late Farman, resident of Village- Aijny, Police Station-Khodawandpur, District-Begusarai ----------------- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Md. Farooque Khan, Son of Late Mohiuddin, Khan, resident of Village-Aijny, Police Station-Khodawandpur, District-Begusarai ---------------------- Opp.Parties. ----------- 05 28-09-2010 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 13.4.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai in Complaint Case No.1540C of 2006. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 323,448, 147, 504 and 363 of the Indian Penal Code. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 initially filed a complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, which was referred to the police for its registration and investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter an F.I.R. vide Khodawandpur P.S. Case No. 48 of 2005. After investigation, police submitted final form and also recommended for prosecuting Opp.Party no.2 for offences under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. Before submission of final form, a protest petition was filed by Opp.Party no.2. Subsequently, the said protest petition was treated as complaint case and thereafter enquiry was conducted and during the enquiry, witnesses were examined. After being satisfied with the materials 2 available on record, the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance i.e. impugned order dated 13.4.2007, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition. After filing of the present petition before this Court this Court i.e. 3.9.2007, the said petition was dismissed due to non-prosecution on 15.12.2008. However, the case was subsequently restored on 8.4.2009. In this case notice was also issued to Opp.Party no.2. Mr.Nasrul Hoda , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while challenging the impugned order, has firstly submitted that the allegation made in the complaint petition was thoroughly investigated by the police and thereafter it was found that Opp.Party no.2 had filed a false case and, as such, while submitting final report , police recommended for prosecuting Opp.Party no.2 for the offences under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even prior to the filing of the present case, the case was lodged by the petitioners against Opp.Party no.2 and others and as a result of filing of the said case, the present complaint was filed by Opp.Party no.2. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the present proceeding has been initiated maliciously and without any proof. Accordingly, it has been prayed to quash the order of cognizance. Dr. Maya Nand Jha, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the complaint petition categorically discloses commission of offences , particularly 3 offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and since there were sufficient materials on record to proceed with the case, the learned Magistrate has rightly passed the impugned order. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. After going through the materials, the Court is of the opinion that while taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate has not committed any error. The petitioner has not made out an exceptional case warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction in his favour. I do not find any material to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)