IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21908 of 2009 1. RENU SINGH @ RANA RENU SINGH SISODIA WIFE OF DR. SHASHI BHUSHAN SINGH. 2. DR. SHASHI BHUSHAN SINGH, SON OF SRI SURENDRA PRASAD SINGH. 3. SRI SURENDRA PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE BHOLA PRASAD SINGH. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF 96A, ASHIANA NAGAR, P.S. RAJIV NAGAR, DISTT. PATNA (BIHAR) ---------PETITIONERS. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, SON OF LATE NARAYAN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-ASHOK NAGAR, POKHARIA, P.S. TOWN, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI. ----------OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate. Mr. Rajeev Kr. Singh, Advocate. Mr. Arbind Kr. Singh, Advocate. For the Opposite Parties. : Mr. Raj Dular Sah, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhayay, A.P.P. -------- 2. 6/11/2009 This order of cognizance dated 13.11.2008 passed in Complaint Case No. 617(C) of 2008 by Sri S.N. Ram, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai, has been challenged on two grounds. Firstly, it is submitted that the Complaint Case would not be maintainable in view of the fact that it has been specifically alleged that the petitioner No. 1 had produced a forged and fabricated document by way of a money bond before the Sessions Judge, Patna, for obtaining bail. The document so produced is a money bond which states that Renu Singh, wife of Dr. Shashi Bhushan Singh has given a loan of Rs. 3.5 lacs to the opposite party No. 2 2 which was to be paid back to Renu Singh after a period of three years which included the interest amount. The total amount of money to be paid is rupees 7 lacs. The arguments made on behalf of the petitioner is that if a forged document was produced in a court for the purpose of grant of bail it is appropriate for opposite party No. 2 to bring it to the notice of the court, and if the court thinks it expedient in the interest of justice, the court can order an enquiry under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and taken action accordingly. The Complaint petition does not contain allegation that the money bond produced creates a liability on the petitioner and as such he challenging it on the ground that the document is a forged and fabricated one. If the Complaint petition had contained such an averment then there could be no doubt that the complaint could have been held to be maintainable. However, the contents of the complaint petition are as follows: ^^ ;g fd vfHk;qDrksa }kjk mDr tkyh euhck.M dk dkxt ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh’k iVuk ds U;k;ky; esa ,-ch-,- ds’k ua0&2550@06 esa vfHk;qDr }kjk nkf[ky fd;k x;k gS A ;g fd eqns; tc bl laca/k esa [kkstchu djuk ’kq: fd;k vkSj tc cjkSuh vapy ftyk csxwljk; esa irk yxk;k rks eqns; dks irk pyk fd vfHk;qDr js.kq flag ds uke ls ,d yk[k :i;k rd dk egktuh djus dk ykblsUl cjkSuh vapy {ks=kf/kdkj rd djus dk 4-5-1993 dks vapy vf/kdkjh cjkSuh ds }kjk fuxZr fd;k x;k ftldh lekfIr vof/k 31-03-1997 rd Fkk A eqns; us ;g Hkh irk yxk;k fd 31-03-1997 ds ckn egktuh ds ykbZlsUl dk uohdj.k vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk ugha djk;k x;k vkSj u rks vkSj dksbZ u;k ykbZlsUl gh fy;k x;k A ;g fd o"kZ 1997 esa egktuh dk ykbZlsUl [kRe gks tkus ds ckn vfHk;qDr us ,d tkyh euhckW.M eqns; dk xyr uke nsdj /kks[kk/kjh] csbZekuh ,oa Bxh dh fu;r ls rS;kj djok;k gS 3 vkSj ml tkyh dkxt dks vius cpko esa U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;k A ;g fd eqns; cjkSuh vapy ls egktuh okn la0&2@93&94 ds vkns’k Qyd dk oktkIrk udy gkfly fd;k vkSj lkjs dkxtkrksa dks gkfly djus ds ckn eqns; dks vfHk;qDr }kjk fd, x, /kks[kk/kM+h] tkylkth ,oa Bxh dh iw.kZ tkudkjh gqbZ A ** In the facts above, it can be held by this Court that the proper procedure will lie in taking recourse to the provisions of Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It may also be noted that the alleged forged money bond was produced in a court within the District of Patna and the case has been filed at Begusarai. The petitioner has thus also challenged the complaint petition on the ground that it could not have been taken under Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the Court of Begusarai has no jurisdiction to take cognizance in this case. I am not deciding this issue in view of the findings that the complaint petition is not maintainable in the facts of the case. Hence, I quash the order of cognizance. The opposite party No. 2 however would have remedy to bring it to the notice of the Sessions Judge, the fact that the petitioner has filed the forged documents for the purpose of obtaining bail and make a prayer for enquiry or file an application for cancellation of bail in the appropriate court. This application is disposed of. S.Ali (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)