IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.29901 of 2009 V.S.Anand @ U.S.Anand Versus State Of Bihar & Anr -------------------- For the petitioner: Mr Rabi Bhushan Prasad, Advocate Mr Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State Mrs Renu Kumari, A.P.P. ------------ 05 16.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. No one has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in spite of service of notice on his son. In my view, this petition can be disposed off at the admission stage itself. This petition has been filed under section 482 of the Cr.P.C for quashing the order dated 15.12.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge I, Patna in Cr. Revision no. 987/2003 as well as order dated 19.8.2000 passed by Sri B.K.Dixit, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint case no.945C/2000. Opposite party no.2, namely, Jai Shankar Prasad Jha filed complaint case bearing Complaint case no.945C/2000 in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna alleging therein, interalia, that he had to travel Indaur along with his family and he got reservation and 2 tickets for sleeper class in Patna-Surat express having train no. 9043 bearing PNR No.631-0331964 for six persons from Patna junction to Indaur junction vide Itarsi junction and he along with his other companions boarded in Patna-Surat express from Patna junction and the aforesaid Patna-Surat express reached Itarsi junction on 7.6.2000 at 12.15 hours . He along his companion got down from the aforesaid Patna- Surat express and again boarded in train no. 1015 coming from Bombay and going towards Inadur. It is further alleged that in the mid of journey petitioner being train traveling examiner came in the boggy of opposite party no.2 and checked his tickets and asked opposite party no.2 to cough up fine because he boarded in restricted train and the train in question was a supper fast train. It is further alleged that the petitioner imposed a fine of Rs 3,012/- upon the opposite party no.2 and his companion though fine comes to the tune of Rs 1512/- only and accordingly, petitioner not only issued fake, fabricated receipt but also digested the aforesaid amount. The learned Magistrate enquired into the complaint petition and having found prima facie case under 3 sections 323,409 and 420 of the IPC, ordered to issue summon against the petitioner vide impugned order dated 19.8.2000. Against the impugned order 19.8.2000, petitioner preferred Cr. Revision no. 987/2003 before the learned Sessions Judge, Patna but the aforesaid criminal revision was dismissed by Addl. Sessions Judge I, Patna vide impugned order dated 15.12.2004. Both the aforesaid impugned orders are under challenge before this court. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has sought for quashing of the impugned orders on the grounds of jurisdictional error, lack of sanction order as well as non-constitution of any offence against the petitioner. To elaborate his submission, he submitted that according to the complaint case itself, the alleged occurrence took place under the jurisdiction of Madhya Pradesh State but opposite party no.2 deliberately and intentionally filed complaint case in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, Bihar who had got no jurisdiction to entertain complaint case as the alleged occurrence had taken place in another State. Secondly, he submitted that petitioner was working as train ticket examiner at the relevant 4 time and even if it is assumed that petitioner has committed alleged occurrence, then also, the aforesaid occurrence was committed in discharge of his official duty. So, petitioner is protected under section 197 of the Cr.P.C. Thirdly, he submitted that even if the allegations levelled against the petitioner in complaint petition are taken into consideration, no case is made out against petitioner because admittedly, opposite party no.2 as well as his companions had got no reservation in Koshi Nagar Lok Manya Tilak express and they had boarded on the aforesaid train without any valid ticket. Moreover, the aforesaid train comes under the category of restricted distance train. It is also pointed out by him that annexure 7 to this petition shows that only Rs 1512/- was imposed as fine on opposite party no.2 and his companions and the aforesaid amount was deposited with the concerned department. So, the question of issuance of forged and fabricated receipt as well as defalcation of government money does not arise and the entire complaint case falls at ground. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State supported the impugned order arguing that it is not a proper stage for quashing the order because at the time of 5 issuance of process, learned Enquiring Magistrate has to see only as to whether prima facie case is made out or not and, therefore, learned Enquiring Magistrate as well as learned Addl. Sessions Judge have rightly rejected the plea of the petitioner. It is further contended by him that admittedly, journey of opposite party no.2 was started from Patna junction and his journey was to be completed at Indaur junction. So, it is well settled principle of law that if an offence is committed in a train, the case can be lodged either at the origination point or after completion of journey. So, the learned lower court has rightly taken cognizance and there is no need to this court to interfere into the impugned order. Having heard the contentions of both the parties I have gone through the record. It is an admitted position that the alleged occurrence took place in the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is further admitted position that opposite party no.2 started his journey from Patna junction by Patna-Surat expess and left the aforesaid train at Itarsi and after that he boarded in Koshi Nagar Lok Manya Tilak express. It is also an admitted position that opposite party no.2 had got no reservation seat in Koshi Nagar Lok Manya Tilak express and 6 the aforesaid train comes under the category of restricted distance train. Furthermore, it would appear from annexure 7 to this petition that opposite party no.2 was fined by the petitioner and opposite party no.2 had to cough up Rs 1512/- only and the aforesaid amount has already been deposited with the concerned railway department. The aforesaid facts clearly go to show that the alleged occurrence took place outside the jurisdiction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna and furthermore, I do not find any substance in the contentions of learned Addl. Public Prosecutor because, admittedly, opposite party no.2 had left Patna from Patna-Surat express and got down from the aforesaid train at Itarsi junction and he again boarded in another train. So, it can easily be said that opposite party no.2 started his break-up journey from Itarsi junction and, therefore, I do not agree with the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that learned Enquiring Magistrate, Patna has got no jurisdiction to inquire into the offence which has admittedly been taken place in the State of Madhya Pradesh and, therefore, learned Judicial Magistrate, Patna has completely lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the matter and 7 committed the error in passing the impugned order. So far as section 197 of the Cr.P.C is concerned, the same is not applicable in respect of the petitioner because, admittedly, he does not come under the category of employees whose services can only be removed by the Government. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, I have no option but to quash the impugned order dated 15.12.2004 and 19.4.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge II, Patna as well as Judicial Magistrate, Patna respectively. Accordingly, order dated 15.12.2004 passed in Cr. Revision no. 987/2003 as well as order dated 19.4.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint case no. 945/2000 are, hereby quashed. However, opposite party no.2 may file fresh complaint petition before the competent court. Accordingly, this quashing petition stands disposed off at the admission stage itself. Shahid ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)