IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10528 of 2008 SANTOSH KUMAR DEEPAK, Son of Late Yogendra Prasad, resident of Lalkothi, Police Station-Tatarpur, District-Bhagalpur --------------- Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02 22-06-2010 Heard Sri B.P.Pandey, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 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 2.1.2008 passed in Bhagalpur Kotwali P.S. Case No.580 of 2000 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur. By the said order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 406,467,468,471,420,120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Sri Pandey, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, while pressing the present petition, submits that the petitioner was neither named in the F.I.R. nor during the investigation any material was collected against him and only on the basis of supervision notes, he has been made accused in the present case. It was further argued that in absence of any material, the learned court below was not required to take cognizance and proceed against this petitioner. While pressing this petition, Sri Pandey, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the Judgment reported in (1988) 1 SCC 692; Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors Vs. Shambhajirao 2 ChadrojiraoAngre & Ors as well as 1992 Supple(1 )SCC 335 ; State of Haryana & Ors Vs. Bhajanlal & Ors. It was argued that if the Court is satisfied that no case is made out , then the Court is required to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and this Court is competent to set aside even the order of cognizance. It was further argued that save and except in the supervision notes, there is no material against this petitioner in the case diary. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. After hearing the parties and perusing the materials available on the records, it appears that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R.. However, from the impugned order, it appears that though in the F.I.R. only two persons were made accused, after investigation, police had submitted chargesheet against four accused persons including this petitioner. Along with the petition, the petitioner has brought on record the copy of the F.I.R. as well as the impugned order. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by its order dated 12.1.2008 , while taking cognizance of the offence has observed that he has examined the F.I.R., Chargesheet as well as the case diary and only after being satisfied with the materials against the petitioner and other accused persons has passed the impugned order. In the present case, the order of cognizance was passed in the year 2008 and in absence of even the chargesheet , it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no material 3 available on the record. Moreover, I am of the view that the Code of Criminal Procedure is self-contained Code. There is provision available in the Code to raise all the please at the appropriate stage. After expiry of more than two years, it would not be appropriate for this Court to call for the Case diary and records to ascertain/ examine each and every paragraphs of the case diary, that too while exercising power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, I do not find any defect in the order of cognizance. I do not find any materials available on record for exercising inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J )