IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10630 of 2003 1. HENA JHA, WIFE OF JAISHANKAR PRASAD SINGH, 2. GAYATRI KUMARI JHA, D/O JAISHANKAR PRASAD JHA, BOTH RESIDENT OF P.C. COLONY, F/123, KANKARBAGH POLICE STATION- KANKARBAGH, DISTRICT- PATNA. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. VINOD K. S/O HONY CAPT K. NARAYANAN NAIR (RETD) VINOD BHAWAN, ELAMKULAM, PO- KUNNAKKAVU, (VIA) CHERUKARA- 679340, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. ----------- 10. 29.3.2010. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.M.P. Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. Both petitioners, who are Directors of Zinkenite Coal and Gas India Ltd., Patna (hereinafter referred to as the Company), have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash an order dated 14.2.2003 passed by Sri Arun Kumar Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in S.K. Puri P.S. Case No.31 of 2000. By the said order, the learned Magistrate had rejected the petition, which was filed for their discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. Learned counsel for the - 2 - petitioners, while challenging the impugned order, submits that in the case, firstly F.I.R. was lodged against the Company. However, after completion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against all the Directors of the Company. He submits that it has not been alleged as to whether these petitioners were executing the function of Company or not and in absence of such material, the police had committed error in submitting charge sheet against these petitioners. He further submits that without charge sheeting the Company, the Directors of the Company cannot be prosecuted. 4. I have also heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, who opposes the prayer and makes a prayer to reject this petition. 5. So far as the question raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, I am of the view that there is no substance in such submission and the stand appears to be misconceived. In the present case, the allegation against the accused persons, who are Directors of the Company - 3 - including two petitioners, is that by way of making advertisement they persuaded the petitioners to apply for a particular post. They were interviewed at Patna by the accused persons and false assurance was given to them for their appointment and they were also cheated by way of taking Rs.7,000/- as first installment and Rs.3,000/- as second installment from the informant. Subsequently, the informant filed a complaint before the Director General of Police, Bihar and thereafter, the present F.I.R. was registered. After investigating the case, police submitted charge sheet against six accused persons including the two petitioners for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 472, 474 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. After perusal of the materials available on record and deeply examining the evidences brought on record by the investigating agency, after submission of the charge sheet, court took cognizance. At the stage of charge, all the accused persons filed petition for their discharge. By order dated 14.2.2003, the learned Magistrate, by giving - 4 - N.H./ a detailed reason, has rejected the petition for discharge of all the accused persons including both the petitioners. The learned Magistrate, while passing order on discharge petition, has assigned a detailed reason. It also appears that learned Magistrate had examined the evidences on record and thereafter, the discharge petition was rejected. I do not find any defect in the impugned order. 6. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. In this case, by order dated 19.3.2004, an order of stay of further proceeding in S.K. Puri Case No.31 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. No.1087 of 2000 pending before Sri A.K. Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna was directed to remain stayed. 7. In view of rejection of the present petition, the interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 8. Let this order be communicated to the court below forthwith. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.) - 5 -