IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15642 of 2008 JATASHANKAR SINGH, SON OF LATE MAKHAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DEOGHARA, P.S. SANGRAMPUR, DIST. MUNGER, AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KIYAJORI, P.S. CHAKAI, DIST. JAMUI. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 2.7.2010. Heard Sri Prabhat Ranjan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of 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 order dated 3.4.2007 passed in Case No.36 C 2 of 2007 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui. By the said order, the learned Magistrate, as per the direction of the learned Sessions Judge, Jamui, issued in Cr. Revision No.19 of 2007, has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 120B, 420, 466, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Short fact of the case is that a criminal revision was filed on behalf of this petitioner vide Cr. Revision No.36 C 2 of 2007 against an order passed by Sub 2 Divisional Judicial Magistrate in Jamui P.S. Case No.89 of 2001. What had happened that along with the criminal revision petition, photo copy of deposition of some of the witnesses was enclosed and, accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge was of the view that this petitioner as well as two advocates, who were appearing on behalf of the petitioner, had committed offence and directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to institute a criminal case. Subsequently, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in the light of order dated 30.3.2007 passed in Cr. Revision No.19 of 2007 passed order of cognizance on 3.4.2007. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was of the view that prima facie case against this petitioner and two advocates, namely, Sri Devendra Kumar Singh-I and Sri Suchin Kumar was made out for the offence under Sections 120B, 420, 466, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issuance of summons against the accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as learned Sessions Judge 3 had proceeded in the case contrary to the provisions contained in Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was submitted that neither any enquiry was conducted nor any case was instituted, however, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directly passed the impugned order of cognizance of the offence. In the similar circumstances, earlier one of the accused, namely, Devendra Kumar Singh-I, who was an advocate, aggrieved with the order of cognizance, approached this Court by way of filing a quashing application vide Cr. Misc. No.24843 of 2007, which was heard by a bench of this Court and assigning a detailed reason, this Court quashed the order of cognizance in respect of co-accused Devendra Kumar Singh-I by its order dated 7.9.2007. Again another co-accused, namely, Suchin Kumar also filed similar petition vide Cr. Misc. No.51534 of 2007, which, too, was allowed by order dated 26.2.2008 by a Bench of this Court. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case particularly on the ground that other two accused persons, almost having similar allegations, have got quashing 4 N.H./ of order of cognizance, there is no point to refuse the prayer of this petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and order dated 3.4.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui in Case No.36 C 2 of 2007, so far as it relates to the petitioner, is hereby set aside. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)