Criminal Miscellanious No. 863 OF 2007 ***** (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ) ****** 1. KAMLI DEVI, WIFE OF BHAGWAT PRASAD BHAGAT, DAUGHTER OF DHIREN MAHALDAR 2. SANTOSH KUMAR, SON OF BHAGWAT PRASAD BHAGAT BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE/MOHALLA PRABHAT COLONY, LINE BAZAR, POLICE STATION K. HAT, DISTRICT PURNEA …….……………………………………………………………………..PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BHAGWAT PRASAD BHAGAT, SON OF LATE NARAYAN PRASAD BHAGAT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHADA GOLA GHAT, POLICE STATION BARIRI, DISTRICT KATIHAR …………………………………………………………………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES ******* FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. BHOLA PRASAD, ADVOCATE MR. M. K. JHA, ADVOCATE FOR O.P. NO. 2 :- MR. SURESH PD. BARNWAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. JHARKHANDI UPADHYAY, A.P.P. ******** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN O R D E R Sheema Ali Khan, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. This application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of the order dated 19.10.2006 by which the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Purnea has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 193, 198, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2 3. The petitioner no. 1 and the complainant are supposed to be the husband and wife. The petitioner no. 2 is the son. The allegations are that the petitioner no. 1 is said to have brought on rocord a forged certificate of admission of her son Santosh Kumar. In the said certificate, it is mentioned that Kunti Devi and Bhagwan Prasad Bhagat, the complainant, are wife and husband. On production of this certificate in the maintenance case, the instant complaint case has been filed. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has dismissed the complaint case by order dated 0505.2003 on the ground that it did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Purnea Court. The complainant filed a revision application by which the order dated 05.05.2003 was set aside. 4. There are two aspects of the matter :- Jurisdiction and the merits of the case. Firstly, the original certificate has been exhibited in Case No. 80 M of 1990 at Katihar. Therefore, the Court at Katihar would have equal jurisdiction to enquire as to whether the certificate produced is forged or not. The second aspect which has to be examined is which of the parties have signed the School Leaving Certificate. As far as the Headmaster is concerned, he would only be producing what is produced by any one of the parents, as such he has no role in the matter. It is wrongfully been alleged 3 that the Headmaster of the school would be in any way involved in producing the forged certificate. It is hardly the duty of the Headmaster to ascertain the parentage of the child who had been admitted to the school. The Headmaster would go by what the guardian states before him. It may be noted here that the original document has not been produced by the complainant before the Court where he has filed the complaint case. Without the original document, the Court could hardly take a decision regarding the falsity or the truthfulness of a particular document. Since, the matter is pending before the Maintenance Court, it would be proper for the Principal Judge, Family Court to consider all these aspects of the matter, if these issues are raised before him. As far as the present criminal case is concerned, it can only be heard or disposed of after the final decision in the maintenance case pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Katihar. 5. I, thus, quash the order dated 19.10.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Purnea in Complaint Case No. 64 of 2002 with liberty to the Opposite Party No. 2 to file a fresh criminal case, in case the Family Court comes to the findings that the certificate of transfer is false and fabricated document. If such a case is filed, the Court below will not dismiss it on 4 the ground of limitation. 6. In the result, this application is allowed to the extent indicated aforesaid. ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. ) PATNA HIGH COURT DATED, THE 03rd MAY, 2011 N.A.F.R./ANAND