IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15546 of 2008 1. Chunchan Prasad Singh , Son of Late Vishundev Singh, resident of Village-Barauni, P.S. Teghra, District- Begusarai 2. Ram Bali Chaurasia, Son of Late Ranjeet Chaurasia, resident of Village-Mokhtiyarpur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District-Begusarai ---------------- Petitioners. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02 24-06-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of the order dated 24.1.2008 passed by Sri A.K.Gupta, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai in Phulwariya P.S. Case No.32 of 2003 ( G.R.No.1101 of 2003). By the said order, the learned Judicial Magistrate has rejected the discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while pressing this petition, submits that there is no specific allegation against both the petitioners. He has argued that the petitioners were deed- writers and in the capacity of deed-writers they had prepared a deed on the request of the accused persons. It was further submitted that the petitioners were not knowing as to whether the accused persons were going to get a forged document prepared. While pressing this petition, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 (8) SCC 751 ; Md. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of 2 Bihar & Anr. It was argued that in the similar circumstance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has set aside the Judgment of this Court, whereby this Court had not interfered with the rejection of the discharge petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed the F.I.R., which was registered on the basis of a complaint petition. The F.I.R. is in two parts. The first part of the F.I.R. is related to the offence committed under Section 386 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It was submitted that so far as the allegation under Sections 386 and 307 are concerned, there is no material against these petitioners. In the F.I.R. itself, specific allegation regarding commission of offence under Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code was made out against accused nos. 1 to 6 of the complaint petition. The informant has not at all whispered against the petitioners regarding such offences. However, it was mentioned that these petitioners had prepared false deed and cheated the accused persons, while committing offence under Sections 420,467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the learned Magistrate has wrongly rejected the discharge petition. It was further argued that no specific reason has been assigned, while rejecting the discharge petition. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, while opposing the prayer of the petitioner, submits that after filing of the complaint petition, the same was sent to the police for its registration and investigation of the case 3 under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter an F.I.R. vide Phulwariya P.S. Case No.32 of 2003 was registered under Sections 386,420,467,468, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After registering the case, the police investigated the same and after thorough investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the accused persons including the petitioners. It was further submitted that during the investigation sufficient materials were collected indicating involvement of the petitioner. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the materials available on records as well as perused the impugned order. I am of the view that while rejecting the discharge petition, the learned Magistrate has committed no error. On perusal of the F.I.R. , it is apparent that there is allegation against the petitioners for preparing a forge deed in connivance with the other accused persons. Learned Magistrate, while hearing the discharge petition, has examined the materials on record and thereafter has rejected the discharge petition. So far as Md.Ibrahim’s case (Supra) is concerned, there is no dispute on the question of law. The said case was a complaint petition case. So far the present case is concerned, complaint petition was referred to the police for its registration and investigation, which discloses commission of offences showing involvement of the petitioners. The police after registering a case investigated the same and thereafter chargesheet was submitted. Accordingly the learned 4 Magistrate has rightly rejected the discharge petition, which was passed on 24.01.2008. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J )