CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7258 OF 2007 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ---------------- 1. Ganesh Prasad Singh @ Ganesh Singh, Son of Ritlal Singh 2. Dhanpat Singh, Son of Rit Lal Singh 3. Rit Lal Singh, Son of Late Dhari Singh All residents of Village- Pachpaika, P.S. Ujiarpur, District- Samastipur ----------------- Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Sri Kant Rai, Son of Bodhan Rai, resident of Village- Pachpaika, P.S. Ujiarpur, District-Samastpur ---- Opp.Parties. --------------- For the petitioners: S/Sri Ram Balak Mahto, Sr. Advocate Ajay, Advocate For Opp.Party No.2: Sri Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate For the State: Sri Hirday Prasad Singh, A.P.P. -------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. Three petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 11.8.2006 passed by Shri Ram Padarath, Learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dalsingsarai in Ujiarpur P.S. Case No.82 of 2005. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that on the basis of written complaint of Opp.Party no.2 , an F.I.R. vide Ujiarpur P.S. Case No.82 of 2005 was registered on 3.7.2005 against the petitioners for offences under Sections 406,420, 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that the informant used to supply 2 coal to the petitioners, who were associated with the brick-kiln manufacturing. It was alleged that despite the fact that the informant had supplied coal to the petitioners and huge amount had become due, on one pretext or the other the same was not paid. Initially, some amount was paid to the informant and Rs.4,36,282/- remain outstanding. After vigorous persuasion and intervention by the Panchayat, petitioners agreed to give the informant bricks in lieu of the due amount. However, it was alleged that while the informant went to lift the bricks, it was opposed by the petitioners. Accordingly, the informant was cheated by accused persons. After registering the F.I.R., the police investigated the case and thereafter chargesheet was submitted by the Investigating Agency. After submission of the chargesheet, learned Magistrate after examining the police report has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition. 4. Sri Ram Balak Mahto, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while challenging the impugned order, submits that even from perusal of the F.I.R., no offence is made out. It has been submitted that in the case, where no offence is made even from the F.I.R., time without number it has been held that such prosecution should be quashed. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in support of his submission has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court , reported in ( 2007) 7 SCC 373 ( Vir Prakash Sharma Vrs. Anil Kumar Agarwal & Anr.) . 3 On the strength of aforesaid decision, it has been argued that the order of cognizance as well as the entire proceeding so far as the petitioners are concerned may be quashed. 5. Sri Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party no.2 has submitted that from the F.I.R. itself, offence is made out. It has further been submitted that whatever allegations were levelled in the F.I.R. were thoroughly investigated by the police and thereafter during the investigation allegations against the petitioners were found true. Thereafter chargtesheet was submitted. It has further been submitted that in the F.I.R. itself, it has been alleged by Opp.Party no.2 that when the huge amount remained outstanding, the informant was duped with an assurance to lift the bricks. However, while he went to lift the bricks, he was opposed by the petitioners. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the specific case of cheating is made out against the petitioners. 6. Sri Hirday Pd. Singh, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. 7. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have aslo perused the F.I.R. as well as the impugned order. The Court is of the opinion that since after registering the F.I.R. the Police investigated the case and submitted chargesheet, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with the impugned order at the initial stage i.e. at the stage of cognizance. The Court is satisfied that there are some element of commission of offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code as per the allegation made in the F.I.R.. 4 Accordingly, the petitioners may not get any benefit in view of the decision of Vir Prakash Sharma’s case (supra). 8. Accordingly, I do not consider the present case as exceptional one for exercising inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. 9. In view of rejection of the present petition, interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 10 It goes without saying that if at the stage of charge a petition for discharge is filed, the learned Magistrate without being prejudiced with the rejection of this petition may examine the materials including the police report and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Patna High Court, Patna Dated : the 2nd November,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/ N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)