Criminal Miscellaneous No.27043 OF 1999 ------ In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------ SMT.LAKSHMI KUMARI SHRIVASTAVA Wife of Shatru Mardan Prasad Verma, resident of Professor Colony, Siwan, P.S. & Dist.-Siwan, Presently employed as Headmistress, Government Girls High School, Gopalganj, P.S. & Dist.-Gopalganj …….. ……..Petitioner Versus 1.BHIM SINGH son of Sri Ramashraya Singh, resident of village & P.O.-Jagdishpur, P.S.-Vijaypur, Dist.-Gopalganj 2.The State of Bihar …… …..Opp. Parties. ------- For the petitioner: Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr.Adv. Mr.Shubh Narayan Singh, Adv. For Opp. Party No.1: Mr.Raghav Prasad, Adv. For the State : Mr.Ajay Mishra, Addl.Public Prosecutor ------ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ------- Rakesh Kumar,J. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 4.9.1999 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj in Complaint Case No.1475 of 1999/Trial No.495 of 1999. By the said order the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under sections 166, 167, 420, 468 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issuance of summons for securing attendance of accused person for facing trial. 2. Short fact of the case is that daughter of the complainant, namely, Rashmi Singh was a student of Class-X of Government Girls High School, Gopalganj and the petitioner was Headmistress of the said school. It was alleged in the complaint 2 petition that while registration form was being submitted for appearing in matriculation examination an illegal demand of Rs.1,000/- was made by the petitioner from the daughter of the complainant. It was alleged that demand was not only made from the daughter of the complainant but the same demand was also made from other students of the school in question. Since the demand of the petitioner was not fulfilled, the petitioner did not submit registration form of the daughter of the petitioner and thereby one year precious career of the daughter of the complainant was spoiled. In the complaint petition it was further alleged that after noticing the fact that due to non-fulfillment of the demand form of his daughter was not properly filled up, the complainant went to the school and enquire from the petitioner. However, the complainant was abused by the petitioner and, accordingly, the present petition was filed. After filing of the compliant petition, the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation. In support of the compliant case two witnesses were examined at enquiry stage and thereafter the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by the impugned order dated 4.9.1999 took cognizance of the offences under sections 166, 167, 420, 467 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioner has approached this court by filing the present petition. 3. Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while challenging the order of cognizance, submits that the complaint petition was filed maliciously. He further submits that the daughter of the petitioner 3 got her admission in the government school on the basis of false transfer certificate. He, while referring to annexure-3 to the petition, which is a typed copy of the letter dated 17th August, 1999 sent by the Principal of the Government Middle School, Basdiha, Gopalganj to the Headmistress Government Girls High School, Gopalganj, submits that it was intimated that transfer certificate was never issued from the Government Middle School, Basdiha in favour of daughter of the petitioner which was the basis for her admission in the Government Girls High School, Gopalganj. He submits that since the complainant was apprehensive that a case was likely to be instituted against him for giving forged document, with a view to create a defence, the present complaint was filed. Accordingly, he has prayed for quashing of the order dated 4.9.1999. 4. Mr. Raghav Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1 has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that whatever pleas have been taken by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, are the defence of the petitioner, which can be taken at the stage of defence during the trial. He submits that at the stage of cognizance the court is required to see only those materials which were brought during the enquiry before the learned Magistrate. He submits that the complaint petition itself categorically describes the commission of offence and the allegation in the compliant petition was supported and corroborated by two witnesses and only on being satisfied that prima facie case is made out, the learned Magistrate took 4 cognizance by its order dated 4.9.1999. He further argued that at this initial stage this court may refrain from interfering with the defence of the petitioner and, accordingly, he has prayed for rejection of the present petition. 5. Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned APP appearing on behalf of State has supported the stand taken by Mr. Raghav Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1. He also submits that the defence taken by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner may not be entertained by this court that too while exercising its inherent power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further submits that the petitioner has not made out an exceptional case warranting exercise of inherent power by this court. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the complaint petition as well as the impugned order. I am of the view that, while taking cognizance, the learned magistrate has committed no error. So far as plea taken by learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in respect of letter issued by the Principal of the Government Middle School, Basadiha is concerned, I am of the view that such document may not be looked into at this stage. Moreover, annexure-3 is a typed copy of the said letter. It further appears that the said letter was issued on 17.8.1999 whereas the first occurrence, as alleged in the present case, was dated 22.7.1999 and thereafter the complaint was filed on 16.7.1999 meaning thereby that after filing of the complaint petition annexure-3 was got issued. Without recording 5 any finding in respect of defence or the documents upon which learned counsel for the petitioner relied, I do not find any merit in the present petition and, accordingly, this petition stands rejected. 7. However, it is made clear that if such plea have been taken which have taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner at an appropriate stage, it is expected that the learned Magistrate will examine the same and will pass order in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order. 8. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay dated 25.9.2000 stands automatically vacated. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. Patna High Court The 11th May, 2010 NAFR/Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)