IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33703 of 2007 VIJAY KUMAR @ VIJAY KUMAR SINGH with Cr.Misc. No.33539 of 2007 SURESH KUMAR JHA @ SURESH JHA Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 6 15.10.2009. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioners have come to this Court for setting aside order dated 20.7.2005, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad in Complaint case no. C672 of 2004 lodged for offences under section 409 I.P.C., by which he has issued summons against them. In the complaint, it is said that a Nala was to be constructed in the south of the road near Jehanabad by one Devnarayan Singh (since deceased) from local collections seven years back. In 2002-04 a sum of Rs. 2,15,000/- was allotted from MP fund for same construction. It is alleged that for construction of nala an agreement was made with petitioner (Suresh Kumar Jha) and Junior engineer, Nagar Palika. It is further alleged that this petitioner in collusion with others withdrew Rs.1,15,000/- on false and fabricated bills. Petitioner Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Kumar Singh submits that the complaint has not been filed by any official rather it has been filed by a private person with vested interest. It would appear from the complaint itself that earlier agreement was made with Suresh Kumar Jha and after cancellation, it was made with Vijay Kumar ( petitioner of Cr.Misc.Number 33539/2007). Thus, so far as Suresh Kumar Jha is - 2 - concerned, even assuming the prosecution case to be true, no allegations have been made against him. Counsel appearing for opp party does not controvert this fact. However, he states that petitioners in collusion with each other committed embezzlement of public money. On perusal of materials on record, this Court does not find any allegation against the petitioner Suresh Kumar Jha, as such, order taking cognizance against him is quashed. So far as application of Vijay Kumar is concerned, learned counsel submits that a report was called by learned Sessions Judge through the Addl P.P. from Executive officer which reveals that the construction in question had been monitored and completed under the supervision of authorities. Bills submitted by this petitioner had been cleared after proper scrutiny. In support of this fact, a copy of report has also been filed as contained in annexure 2. Be that as it may, the petitioner (Vijay Kumar) may take all these points at the time of framing of charge which would be looked into by the learned court in accordance with law. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)