IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.53124 of 2008 Prashant Katyayan, son of Rajeshwar Chaubey, Resident of Village-Belauna, P.S. Motihari, District-Motihari. ……………………………………………………….Petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar…………………………..Opposite Party. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Dhananjai Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. -------------------------------- O R D E R 2. 30.8.2011. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 29.8.2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, in Gardanibagh (Shastrinagar) P.S. Case No.437 of 2004/G.B.H. No.437 of 2004, whereby the petitioner, Prashant Katyayan, and the other accused, Anuj Kumar, have been summoned finding prima facie case under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code besides Section 10 of the Bihar Conduct of Examination Act, 1981. 2. The brief fact, leading to the impugned order, which is under challenge in this application, is that on the basis of the written report of one Dr. Manju Rani Verma, Principal 2 of R.L.S.Y. Sarvodaya High School, Punaichak, Patna, Gardanibagh (Shastrinagar) P.S. Case No.437 of 2004 was instituted under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code besides Section 10 of the Bihar Conduct of Examination Act, 1981, against the petitioner, Prashant Katyayan and the accused, Anuj Kumar, in which it is alleged that in course of examination of chemistry of B.C.C.E. in the second sitting Anuj Kumar, son of Ratna Narayan Jha, was found sitting at Roll No.210332 at the place of the petitioner, Prashant Katyayan, which was detected in course of taking the attendance of the examinees. 3. After investigation on submitting of the chargesheet, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, on perusal of the case diary, took the cognizance of the offence under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code besides Section 10 of the Bihar Conduct of Examination Act, 1981. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the accused-petitioner has preferred this application. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that on bare perusal of the F.I.R. itself, it is clear that the offence is only made out under Section 10 of the Bihar Conduct of Examination Act, 1981, which is an Act 3 relating to conduct the examination but the Chief Judicial Magistrate has erred in taking the cognizance of the offence under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code which is not made out against the petitioner from the perusal of the F.I.R. itself. 5. The F.I.R. itself shows the allegation that the other accused, Anuj Kumar, was found sitting in the examination in the name of the petitioner, Prashant Katyayan, and that was detected in course of obtaining the signatures of the examinees at the time of examination. 6. Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code relates to punishment for cheating by personation which is defined in Section 416 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code relates to cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property and punishment for that. Sections 416 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code are read as under: “416. Cheating by personation.- A person is said to “cheat by personation” if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is. 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to 4 make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 7. The definition of cheating by personation clearly indicates that if a person cheats by pretending to some other person or by knowingly substituting one person for another will amount to cheating by personation. In this case, the other accused, Anuj Kumar, was found sitting using the Admit Card of the petitioner in examination. So, the offence under Sections 419 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is clearly made out against the petitioner. As far as the offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of the property is concerned, there is nothing in the F.I.R. about cheating and thereby inducing the person to deliver any property or making, altering or destroying the whole or any part of the property. As such, the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out as per the allegation made in the F.I.R. Therefore, the cognizance of the offence under Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code and under 5 Section 10 of the Bihar Conduct of Examination Act, 1981 is proper as per the allegation made in the F.I.R. but the cognizance of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code appears to be not made out against the petitioner. Accordingly, the cognizance order dated 29.8.2005 regarding offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of the accused-petitioner is hereby quashed and this application only to that extent is allowed. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)