IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43379 of 2007 AJIT KUMAR CHOUDHARY, s/o Satyadeo Choudhary, residence of village- Khakhna, P. S.- Kudani, Dist.- Muzaffarpur, at present resident at Majurahan, P.S. Turkauliya, District- East Champaran. … Petitioner. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Vijay Singh son of Dindayal Singh, residence of village- Majurahan, P. S. Turkauliya, District- East Champaran. .. Opp. Parties. ----------- 4. 19.03.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The order taking cognizance under Section 467, 468, 469, 471 of the Indian Penal Code is sought to be assailed by the petitioner on the ground that if it was a forgery in the summons issued by the court below and if the process server Rajesh Tiwari was the source of information to the complainant with regard to complicity of the petitioner, the court below was under obligation to proceed by getting complaint filed. This court would find some substance in the aforesaid submission inasmuch as from a reading of the complaint petition it would be clear that Rajesh Tiwari being a peon had served summons on the complainant for his appearance in the court. If the summons of the court of Mr. Lalan Lal 2 Shrivastava, Judicial Magistrate, Motihari was used by Rajesh Tiwari, the court itself had the power to take action in terms of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, it would be found that the court below has proceeded on a complaint of a busy body which is not be permissible in law. Accordingly, impugned order taking cognizance is quashed but at the same time, concerned court is directed to ensure that an enquiry is made with regard to issue of forged summon and the complicity of Rajesh Tiwari, a peon of the court and if it is satisfied it may itself file a complaint. With the aforesaid direction, this application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)