IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15463 of 2008 DIPAK KUMAR CHOUBEY son of Aaditya Nath Choubey Resident of village-Gareyam, P.S.-Shahpur, Dist.-Bhojpur, Ara. ………. ……Petitioner Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Ajay Kumar Tiwari, Block Development Officer, Shahpur, District- Bhojpur, Ara. …… ……Opp. Party. ----------- 2. 24.6.2010. Heard Mr.Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Binod Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing 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 16.1.2008 passed in Shahpur P.S. Case No.168 of 2007 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara. By the said order the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under sections 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and transferred the case to the court of Sri B.N.Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ara, for its disposal which was numbered as G.R. No.3162 of 2007/Tr. No.3003 of 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while pressing the petition, placed first information report and submitted that from the first information report itself it appears that no offence is made out. It was argued that in the first information report there was allegation that on verification it has been found that fake residential certificate was produced. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed page 13 of the petition, which is a copy of the 2 said certificate, and submits that in the certificate name of this petitioner, father’s name as well as residence is same as has been mentioned in the main petition. It was further submitted that in the residential certificate there is no error. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in that view of the matter, no case is made out and without any material on record the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by the impugned order has incorrectly taken cognizance of the offence. Mr. Binod Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that in the first information report it has been mentioned that residential certificate in respect of the petitioner was fake. He submits that after thorough investigation and collecting materials showing involvement of the petitioner, the police submitted charge sheet and after submission of the charge sheet the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate examined the case diary and the materials available on record and, thereafter, by the impugned order has taken cognizance of the offence. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also examined the materials on record. In the first information report there is specific averment of commission of offence. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, while taking cognizance of the offence, had examined the case diary and the materials on record and only, thereafter, he had passed the impugned order. I do not find any defect in the impugned order. At this initial stage, I am of the view that this court is not required to interfere in the matter 3 and, accordingly, this petition stands rejected. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)