Criminal Miscellaneous No.26472 OF 1999 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ------------- 1. RAMJEE SINGH ,Son of Late Pratap Singh 2. Surya Narayan Singh, Son of Ramjee Prasad Singh 3. Vinay Singh, Son of Dhanushdhari Singh All residents of Village- Muryari , P.O. Ganiary, P.S. Sakara, District-Muzaffarpur ----------- Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Tribhuwan Singh, Son of Late Pratap Singh, resident of Village-Muryari, P.O. Ganiary, P.S. Sakara, District- Muzaffarpur -------------- Opp.Parties. ------------ For the petitioners: None. For the State : Mr. Damodar Lal Tiwary, A.P.P. -------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. Yesterday, when the case was called out, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. However, as a last indulgence, the case was adjourned for a day. While adjourning the case, it was noticed in the order dated 11.5.2010 that the present case was admitted on 6.1.2000. While admitting the case, this Court had directed that pending disposal of the application, further proceeding in Tr.No.1553 of 1999 in Complaint Case No.1190 of 1998 pending in the court of Sri Krishna Mohan Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur shall remain stayed. The Court also called for lower court records and the order of stay is still continuing. It was further made clear in its order dated 11.5.2010 that if on the next date, no one appears on behalf of the petitioners, the case shall be decided on the basis of 2 materials available on the record of the case. 2. Today again when the case was called out, none has come forward to press this petition. 3. Three petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of the order dated 29.5.1999 passed by Sri Krishna Mohan Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No.1190 of 1998, Tr.No.1553 of 1999. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 420,467,468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 4. On perusal of the records, it appears that Opp.Party no.2 had initially filed a complaint vide Complaint Case No.335 of 1998 in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur alleging therein that the petitioners conspired with each other forced Opp.Party no.2 to take some intoxicating things and thereafter they fraudulently took L.T.I. on sale deed of a land pertaining to Khata No.15, Khesra No.616, Khata No.17 Khesra No.1278 and Khata No.19 Khesra Nos.156 and 565.It was disclosed that the complainant had earlier signed a ‘Mahadnama’ in favour of one Sumitra Devi and wife of one Sri Satya Narain Singh and subsequently he came to know that fraudulently the accused persons got L.T.I. of Opp.Party no.2 on Registry paper in favour of Surya Narayan Singh and Sanjay Kumar, both sons of petitioner no.1 Ramjee Singh. The said complaint petition was referred to the police for its registration and investigation under 3 Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and accordingly an F.I.R. vide Sakara P.S. Case No.55 of 1998 was registered for the offences under Sections 406,420,467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. While investigation was going on, Opp.Party no.2 developed apprehension that he may not get justice from the police and accordingly he filed a protest petition in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate with an allegation that he had seen the Investigating Officer with the accused persons and he was apprehending that the police in connivance with the accused persons may not submit a true report. However, the police after investigation submitted final report. The said fact has been stated in the petition. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate treated the protest petition as complaint and a case vide Complaint Case No.C-1190 of 1998 was registered. During the enquiry, the complainant produced three witnesses and also some documents were produced. The learned Magistrate after examining the evidence, which were brought during the enquiry by order dated 29.5.1998, after being satisfied that the prima facie case was made out, took cognizance of offences under Sections 420,467,468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issuance of process for securing the attendance of the accused/petitioners. 5. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition, which was admitted on 6.1.2000 and order of stay was also granted. 6. On examination of materials available on the record 4 as well as impugned order of cognizance, I do not find any error in the order of cognizance. The learned Magistrate before taking cognizance of the offence has examined the materials , which were brought on record and only after being satisfied that the prima facie case was made out the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences by the impugned order. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the petition stands rejected. 8. In view of rejection of this petition, the interim order of stay dated 6.1.2000 stands automatically vacated. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 12th May,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/ N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J )