IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.19125 of 2008 S.R. Rao Sahib, son of Late R. K. Rao Sahib, resident of Plot No. 764, 50th Cross, 3rd Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore – 10 - petitioner. With Cr.Misc. No. 24031 of 2009 S. R. Shreedhar, son of Late S. V. Rathnaiha, resident of Plot No. 764, 50th Cross, 3rd Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore – 10 – petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) Pramod Kumar son of Shri Anandi Sao, Prop. M/s. Rupali Enterprises, Dayal Colony, Chitragupta Nagar, PS Patrakarnagar, district Patna – opp. parties in both the cases. 15.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Cr. Misc. No. 19125 of 2008 has been filed for quashing the order, dated 12.3.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 975C/2001 by which the court has refused to discharge the petitioners whereas Cr. Misc. No. 24031/2009 has been filed for setting aside the order, dated 22.5.2009 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge IV, Patna in Cr. Revision No. 208/2008. The grounds taken by the court below that there are several documents which would show that there is sufficient material to constitute an offence under sections 406 and 420 of the Penal Code. A affidavit giving the list of documents have been filed on behalf of the complainant. All the nine documents are signed by the managing partner i.e. V. Narasa Raju, accused no.2 in the case. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the court below has erred in law in referring to the documents as the documents do not indicate that the petitioners are involved in the said offence. It is said that all the dealings are with accused no.2 and as such merely on the basis of the fact that a legal notice was sent to the petitioners as well, would not make them liable under sections 406 and 420 of the Penal Code. It is 2 further submitted that no offence whatsoever is made out under sections 406 and 420 of the Penal Code. I find that the two orders aforesaid are cryptic in nature. The revisional order merely states that the petitioners are the Marketing Directors of the company whereas the materials on which the court has reached to this conclusion remains unexplained in the order. I accordingly quash the order, dated 12.3.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint case No. 975C/2001 and remand the matter back to the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna. Ordinarily this court would have issued notices to the complainant in this matter. However, considering the fact that issuance of notice would not change the result of the case and would amount to waste of court’s time, I direct that the court below should hear the complainant on the issue and pass a fresh orders. The matter should be heard within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of his order. In the result, these two applications are allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to deposit the cost of Fax by 16.3.2010 for communicating this order to the court concerned; failure to do so will result in dismissal of this application. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)