IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.44347 of 2008 Satish Narayan, son of Late Ram Narayan, resident of Ghaghat Ghat, Ps Sultanganj, Dist. Patna, presently residing near Maleria office, Gulbe Ghat, PS Sultanganj, Dist. Patna – Petitioner. Versus State Of Bihar ----------- 2 25.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 7.8.2008 passed in Complaint Case No. 259C/2008 by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamui by which cognizance has been taken for the offences alleged to have been committed under sections 406, 420 and 468 of the Penal Code. The petitioner is the District Development Commissioner and at the relevant time he was working at Jamui. The complainant is a private agent of Central Cooperative Bank. It is admitted fact that the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs.10 lakhs from the Central Cooperative Bank for purchasing a piece of land. The allegation against the petitioner by the complainant is that the petitioner had taken a private loan from the complainant to the tune of rs.9.80 lakhs which he had promised to pay within six months. To support this allegation the complainant has annexed Iqrarnama, dated 30.11.2005 with the complaint petition which indicates that the petitioner had taken loan of Rs.9.80 lakhs. The original copy of the Iqrarnama has not been annexed. I accordingly direct the C.J.M, Jamui to give notice to 2 the complainant to produce the original copy of the Iqrarnama, take his signature on a plain paper along with the signature of the petitioner. The signature of the complainant on complaint petition, the signature taken before the court and the signature of the petitioner or any admitted documents should be sent to the Government expert for verification. This court is quite aware of the fact that normally such a direction cannot be given as it almost amounts to taking the investigation of a case into the hands of the court which is not the procedure commonly followed. However, considering the antecedent of the complainant who is accused in as many as ten cases instituted by different persons under sections 406, 467, 468 and 471 of the Penal Code, this court feels that it will save lot of court’s time if such a procedure was adopted by the court in this case. Once the report is received from the Government expert, the petitioner would be at liberty to file an application for his discharge in the aforesaid case. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)