CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9230 OF 2003 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ---------- HARI KRISHNA JHA, Son of Late Baleshwar Jha, resident of N/C- 9, Gayatri Mandir Road, Kankarbagh, P.S. Kankarbagh, District- Patna ------------------- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Bihar State Khadi and Village Industries Board, East Gandhi Maidan, P.S. Gadhi Maidan, District-Patna, through Deputy Chief Executive Officer of Bihar State Khadi and Village Industries Bhawan,Patna ------------------ Opp.Parties. --------- For the petitioner: S/Sri Shrinandan Prasad Singh, & Ashok Kumar, Advocates For the State: Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, had approached this Court in the month of April, 2003 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance, which was passed long back on 22.4.1997. By order dated 22.4.1997, the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 409, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code in Case No.467(M) of 1997. 2. Short fact of the case is that a complaint was filed by Bihar State Khadi and Village Industries Board, Patna (hereinafter referred to as “the Khadi Board”) in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna against the petitioner, which was numbered as Case 2 No.467 (M) of 1997. In the complaint petition, various allegations were levelled against the petitioner. Since it was an official complaint, learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna by its order dated 22.4.1997 took cognizance of offences, as stated above. 3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioner filed the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 8.4.2003. While issuing notice to Opp.Party no.2 by order dated 13.11.2003, this Court directed that in the meantime further proceeding in the court of A.C.J.M., Patna in Case No.467 (M) of 1997 shall remain stayed. Subsequently, the petition was admitted for hearing on 18.11.2005 and it was directed that in the meantime, the interim order dated 13.11.2003 shall continue .The order of stay is still continuing. 4. Shri Shrinandan Pd. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised several points assailing the order of cognizance. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had already resigned from the Khadi Board long back in the year 1990 and thereafter his entire dues was cleared by the Khadi Board. He has further submitted that from the contents of the complaint petition no offence is made out. Only allegations have been made by the complainant in the complaint case. It was further argued that whatever allegation has been made in the complaint petition, it was required to be looked into only in a Departmental proceeding and on such allegation no criminal offence is made out. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has 3 also referred to a number of documents, which have been enclosed with the present petition. It has further been argued that even in the complaint petition, it was alleged that occurrence had taken place from 1967 to 11.11.1995 and it was argued that the petitioner is an old man and at this stage it would not be appropriate to direct the petitioner to participate in the criminal proceeding before the court below. On the aforesaid grounds, it has been prayed to quash the order of cognizance. 5. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. 6. I have perused the averments made in the complaint petition as well as the order of cognizance dated 22.4.1997. Without saying anything on merit of the case, the Court is of the view that there is no error in the order of cognizance. Moreover, in the present case the order of cognizance was passed on 22.4.1997 and thereafter the present petition was filed on 8.4.2003. At the time of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not at all knowing regarding filing of the complaint petition and when it was noticed, the petitioner firstly approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail, which was granted by this Court in the month of January, 2003 and after being released on bail the petitioner has assailed the order of cognizance by filing the present petition. The averment made in complaint petition shows that it was a case of misappropriation and also destruction of certain documents. On the 4 basis of averments made in the complaint petition, I am of the opinion that the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance of offence has not committed any error. The Court is satisfied that the petitioner has not made out an exceptional case warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction in his favour. 7. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the order of cognizance dated 22.04.1997 passed in Case No.467 (M) of 1997 is hereby rejected. 8. In view of rejection of the present petition, interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 9th September,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/ N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)