CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27328 OF 2003 ---- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. ---- 1. MANJU KUMARI W/O SHAILENDRA KUMAR 2. SMT. SUDARSHAN DEVI W/O RAM EKBAL SINGH 3. RAM EKBAL SINGH S/O LATE KULDEEP SINGH ALL RESIDENTS OF MOHALLA GAUTAM NAGAR, JANTA ROAD, P.S. GARDANIBAGH, DISTRICT PATNA. ... ... PETITIONERS. Versus 1. SHAILENDRA KUMAR S/O RAM RATAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMPUR, P.S. GAURICHAK, DISTRICT PATNA. 2. THE STATE OF BIHAR. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ---- For the Petitioners : None For O.P. No.1 : None For the State : Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. ---- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ---- Rakesh kumar,J. Neither any one appeared on behalf of the petitioners or on behalf of opposite party no.1. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appears on behalf of the State. 2. Three petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 13.2.2001 passed by Sri B.P. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No.1695(C) of 2000. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Section 471 of 2 the Indian Penal Code and directed for summoning the petitioners. 3. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2, wife of petitioner no.1, filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.1695(C) of 2000. In the complaint petition, it was alleged that petitioner no.1 had filed a case vide Case No.13 M of 1995 before the Family Court under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the complainant in which other two accused persons were examined as witnesses. It was alleged that in the said proceeding, the accused persons, in order to get favourable order, had filed certified copy of Khatiyan purported to be in the name of Ram Autar village Sohagi, Police Station Phulwari, while complainant’s village was Rampur Gaurichak. It was alleged that accused persons mis-represented in the court and filed Khatiyan of a different person. On that allegation, complaint was filed for offence under Sections 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against all the three petitioners. After filing the complaint and examining the complainant on solemn affirmation and 3 perusing some documents, during the enquiry, the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of offence under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition, which was admitted on 27.1.2004. While admitting, this Court directed that during the pendency of this application, further proceeding in the court below shall remain stayed. The order of stay is still continuing. 5. Perusal of the petition and materials available on record makes it clear that the petitioner no.1 was married to the opposite party no.1 and right from very beginning, it was alleged by petitioner no.1 that opposite party no.1 and his family members started torturing petitioner no.1 with a view to extract dowry and finally she was ousted from the house of her in-laws. Thereafter, a complaint was filed by the petitioner no.1 against opposite party no.1 and his family members, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.293C of 1994. It has been stated in the present petition that in the said case, charges were also framed against 4 the accused persons. During said dispute, a petition for maintenance was also filed by the petitioner no.1 in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, which was numbered as Maintenance Case No.13M of 1995 claiming maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month for herself as well as another maintenance case i.e. vide Maintenance Case No.82 M of 1999 was filed with a prayer to grant maintenance to the minor child. It also appears that maintenance for Rs.400/- was allowed. Subsequently, it was alleged by the opposite party no.1 that the petitioner no.1 had fraudulently filed an incorrect Khatiyan in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court. On the allegation of filing incorrect or false Khatiyan in the court of Principal Judge, the opposite party no.1 filed the present complaint i.e. Complaint Case No.1695(C) of 2000. The learned Magistrate, oblivious of the fact that the allegation made in the complaint, was in relation to the proceeding pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court had taken cognizance in the present case. The court is of the opinion that order of cognizance was barred under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal 5 Procedure. There is no allegation that the petitioners had prepared any forged document. Only allegation is that an incorrect Khatiyan was produced in the maintenance case before the Family Court. 6. Accordingly, in some and substance, each and every allegation was made in relation to a proceeding pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court and as such without sanction or permission of the Family Court, the learned Judicial Magistrate was not at all authorized to take cognizance of offence in the present case. 7. Accordingly, order of cognizance dated 13.2.2001 is hereby set aside and petition stands allowed. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.) PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 13.9.2010 N.A.F.R./N.H.