IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45944 of 2007 SANJAY KUMAR son of late Paras Nath Sahay, resident of Mohalla-Sultanpur, P.S.-Danapur, Dist.-Patna. Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Surendra Kumar Singh son of late Surya Kumar Verma, resident of Bichali Gali, Gola Road, P.S.-Danapur, Dist.-Patna. ----------- 5. 15.3.2010. Heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. A.H.M., Rahman, learned APP for the State. The petitioner, while invoking jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Proecdure (Cr.P.C.), has prayed for quashing of the order dated 20.10.2003, whereby learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, has taken cognizance of the offence under sections 420, 465, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code in Danapur P.S. Case No.14 of 2003. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the order dated 8.5.2004 whereby charges were framed against the petitioner for the offences under sections 420, 465, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the entire proceedings in the aforesaid case. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, while pressing the petition, submits that on bare perusal of the complaint petition, which is part of the first information report, no cognizable offence is made out. He further submits that it was a dispute between the ex-member and present member of the Managing Committee of D.A.V. School, Danapur. Learned 2 counsel further submitted that dispute regarding claim of Secretary of the Managing Committee had travelled from the court below to this High Court. He referred to Annexure-16 to the petition, which is an order dated 25.9.2001, and submits that even the Director, Secondary Education vide order dated 25.9.2001 had admitted that the petitioner was functioning as a Secretary and he was authorized to pass pay bills etc. He further submits that order contained in Annexure-16 was challenged by the complainant by way of filing a writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No.14918 of 2001 which was disposed of on 19.11.2009 in favour of the complainant and thereafter, this petitioner filed an appeal vide L.P.A. No.114 of 2002 against the order passed by the Single Judge and the L.P.A. Court vide its order dated 25.1.2002 stayed the order of the learned Single Judge and finally by order dated 24.1.2003, the appeal filed by this petitioner along with one Ganga Prasad was allowed. Learned counsel further argued by way of referring to the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court reported in 2008(1) PLJR 82 S.C. (Indra Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Utranchal) submitted that this Court may exercise its inherent power in favour of the petitioner. He referred to paragraph-45 of the judgment of the Supreme Court, which is quoted herein below : “The court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressure the accused. On analysis of the 3 aforementioned cases, we are of the opinion that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down an inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Inherent jurisdiction of the High Courts under section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when it is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Statute itself and in the aforementioned cases. In view of the settled legal position, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.” Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 in this case has filed a counter affidavit and he submitted that there is no merit in the present petition and the petition may be rejected. He also submitted that complaint petition itself categorically indicates commission of cognizable offence. Learned counsel for the State supports the stands of the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and he also makes a prayer to reject the petition. In this case, a complaint petition was filed by the opposite party no.2 on 24.12.2002. The complaint petition was numbered as Complaint Case No.812C of 2002. The said complaint petition was referred to the police for its investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter, first information report vide Danapur P.S. Case No.14 of 2003 was 4 registered for the offence under Section 420, 465, 468 and 120B of the Indian penal Code against this petitioner and also against one Ramadhar Sharma. Perusal of the first information report makes it clear that cognizable offences were committed. The complaint petition makes it clear that though the petitioner on the date in question was not the Secretary of the Managing Committee, he impersonated himself to be the Secretary. Even paragraph-9 of the complaint petition i.e. part of the first information report is specific on this particular point. After registering the case, the police started investigation and on collecting materials filed charge sheet against this petitioner and one another accused. After submission of the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate examined the material available on the record and thereafter, by order dated 20.10.2003 took cognizance of the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The order of cognizance was earlier never challenged by the petitioner nor the petitioner filed any application for discharge at an appropriate stage and when charges were framed in the year 2004 even then he did not raise any grievance. After expiry of several years from the date of framing of the charge, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. on 3.10.2007 and now matter is before this Court. It need not to be reiterated that either at the stage of cognizance or at the stage of charge requirement for the court is to examine as to whether any prima facie case is made out or not. The word „prima facie‟ has been 5 examined on several occasions and in one of the cases reported in 1996 Cr.L.J. (3)2448 (State of Maharashtra Vrs. Some Nath Thapa), in paragraph-30 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has held that if there is probability of commission of an offence, then it will be deemed that prima facie case has been made out for framing of the charges. It would be appropriate to quote paragraph-30 of the judgment, which is as follows : “In Antulay‟s case, (AIR 1986 SC 2045), Bhagwati, C.J., opined, after noting the difference in the language of the three pairs of section, that despite the difference there is no scope for doubt that at the stage at which the Court is required to consider the question of framing of charge, the test of “prima facie” case has to be applied. According to Shri Jethmalani, a prima facie case can be said to have been made out when the evidence, unless rebutted, would make the accused liable to conviction. In our view, better and clearer statement of law would be that if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, a Court can justifiably say that a prima facie case against him exists, and so, frame charge against him for committing that offence.” 6 So far as judgment referred by Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is concerned, I am of the view that there is nothing to dispute the law laid down by the Supreme Court. However, each case is to be examined on the basis of material available on the record of the case. In the present case, I have examined materials as well as conduct of this petitioner and I am of the view that there is no error either in the order of cognizance or order of framing of the charges. Accordingly, I find no merit in this petition. The petition stands dismissed. Since the matter is old, it is desirable to direct the court below to expedite the proceedings. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)