IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.47540 of 2007 BINOD KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE SAMBAT NARAYAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BELSARA, POLICE STATION- DEO, DISTRICT-AURANGABAD(BIHAR) ….PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAM DEO SINGH, SON OF LATE GANESH NARAYAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BELSARA, P.S.-DEO, DISTRICT-AURANGABAD. 3. LALAN PRASAD SINGH, SON OF SRI RAM DEO SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BELSARA, P.S. DEO, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD 4. LAKSHMAN PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE NAURANG SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BHAWANIPUR, P.S.-DEO, DISTRICT AURANGABAD. 5. RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE DUNBOHAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-RASULPUR, P.S.- MADANPUR, DISTRICT AURANGABAD. 6. RADHESHYAM MISHRA, SON OF LATE RAM BRICKSH MISHRA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-RAJA KURKA, P.S. DEO, DISTRICT AURANGABAD. 7. SURESH PRASAD SINGH, SON OF SRI JAGANATH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-AJAB BIGHA, P.S.-DEO, DISTRICT AURANGABAD. 8. MATHURA PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE HARIHAR PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-DEO, P.S. DEO, DISTRICT AURANGABAD. 9. PASHUPATI PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE RAM DAYAL PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-DUMARI BELWA, P.S. MADANPUR, DISTRICT-AURANGABAD. 10. PRAMOD KUMAR, SON OF LATE RAMASHRAY SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BELSARA, P.S. DEO, DISTRICT AURANGABAD. 11. MAHENDRA KUMAR GUPTA, SON OF LATE NAVJADIK PRASAD GUPTA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-KHEMCHAND BIGHA, P.S. DEO, DISTRICT AURANGABAD. 12. ASHOK KUMAR, ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, AURANGABAD(BIHAR) …OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 08. 22.03.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner assails the order dated 28.12.2007, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Aurangabad in Criminal Revision No.38/04/31/04, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner had preferred the aforesaid revision application against the - 2 - order dated 15.12.2003, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Aurangabad in Complaint Case No. C107/02/946/04(Binod Kumar Singh Vs. Ram Deo Singh & Ors.). In relation to an occurrence allegedly having taken place on 29.06.1989, the complainant-petitioner filed a complaint in the year 2002 alleging therein that he was removed from the post of the Principal of the college in question on the strength of certain forgery having been committed by the members of the Managing Committee of the college in question. The complaint further discloses that earlier to this in relation to the happenings in the college in question, a substantive police case being Deo P.S.Case No.26/89 under sections 406,420,468 and 120B IPC was lodged against the present petitioner and others. In course of investigation, the custody of the document(s) as well as the keys of the almirah were directed to be made over to the President of the Ad hoc Committee of the college in question, so that the teaching facility of college in question continue uninterruptedly. The complaint also alleges that subsequent to the grant of affiliation to the college in question, this issue was raised by him(complainant) before the said Committee in the year 1996. The complainant, it appears, thereafter waited for about six years and has lodged the present complaint with an allegation that members of the Managing Committee designedly interpolated with the records/proceedings of the Managing Committee and got him terminated from the post of the Principal of the college in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the - 3 - order submits that mini/summary trial at the stage of taking cognizance is not permissible in law. In his submission, the court below has exceeded its jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, supports the impugned order. It is contended that the complainant-petitioner was tried in the aforesaid Deo P.S.Case No.26/89 and was convicted by a judgment which was passed much prior to the filing of the present complaint. It is thus contended that the present complaint is out and out a malafide prosecution. This Court is not in a position to appreciate as to why and how the petitioner waited for 13 long years before filing the present complaint. This by itself emits an impression that the present prosecution has been lodged for ulterior reasons/motives. In what I have discussed above, the consideration of the matter by the two courts below cannot be faulted. There is no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )