IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16192 of 2008 MD.MUZAHIR ALAM @ MUZAHIR ALAM son of Munshi Kangalu, resident of village-Khemiya, P.S.- Amour, Dist.-Purnea ….. ….Petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.Mangni Begum wife of Taslim, P.S.-Amour, Dist.-Purnea ….. …..Opp.Party. ----------- 2. 29.6.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The sole petitioner while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 13.2.2008 passed in Cr.Revision No.540 of 2007 by learned Sessions Judge, Purnea. By the said order Cr. Revision No.504 of 2007 which was preferred against the order of cognizance dated 17.9.2007 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea was rejected. In Amour P.S. Case No.85 of 2006 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea had taken cognizance of the offences under sections 448, 323, 420 and 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and summoned the accused persons including the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was only a deed writer and he was not at all knowing as to whether the accused person had got prepared forged deed or not. On this ground he has prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance as well as order of revisional court. I have perused the impugned order. I do not find any material on record warranting this court to exercise inherent 2 jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner after order of cognizance filed a criminal revision petition which was rejected and, thereafter, in the garb of a petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure virtually the petitioner has filed second revision petition and the same is barred under section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the ground of its maintainability as well as on merit , the petition stands rejected. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)