IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.368 of 2009 ABHISHEK RANJAN & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 15-May-09 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Petitioners are three of the accused out of 17 named in the FIR who have prayed for quashing of the FIR, the charge-sheet and the order of cognizance dated 13.6.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No.150 of 2003. On behalf of petitioners it has been submitted that the allegations made in the FIR alleging that fraudulent papers and deeds were prepared with a view to grab the house and land of the informant make out only a case of civil dispute and hence the FIR should be quashed. It was further submitted that some specific allegations have been made out against some of the accused but not against these three petitioners. It has further been submitted that provisions under Section 47 (3) of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act bar prosecution for an offence under that Act without sanction from the Registrar Co- operative Societies. It has further been submitted that the order of cognizance has been passed without proper application of mind to the relevant facts and lastly it has 2 been submitted that no criminal prosecution should be permitted when the informant has not preferred any civil suit to get the alleged forged deed declared null and void. Learned counsel for the petitioner also tried to highlight that steps during investigation such as efforts to arrest the accused persons were taken in haste because of a direction by this Court in a criminal writ petition of 2005 to expedite the investigation which had been pending for two years and conclude the same expeditiously and preferably within three months. At an interim stage like the present one, it is always difficult for a superior court to enter into thickets of facts specially when further proceeding relating to the main dispute remains to be decided. However, within the permissible scope of judicial review at this stage, this Court finds that allegations in the FIR, prima facie, make out offences which needed investigation by the police. The investigation has been concluded and charge-sheet has been filed. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has considered the relevant facts and taken pains to highlight the fact under which investigation was ordered to be completed expeditiously. Be that as it may, on going through the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate this Court finds that the learned Magistrate did apply his mind to the relevant facts and the order of cognizance 3 cannot be faulted on the plea that there was no application of mind. The provisions of Section 47(3) of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act bar prosecution only in respect of the offence under that Act whereas the present case is for offence under the Indian Penal Code and hence that bar has no application in this case. It is also not possible to interfere in the matter only because the informant is said to have filed a civil suit in 1997 but later withdrew the same. At the present stage, this Court is not persuaded to examine the facts in detail. It goes without saying that an accused always has remedy to raise his defence at the stage of framing of charge or at the trial stage. If the three petitioners feel that against them there is no material available on record as a result of investigation, they may pray before the concerned court for their discharge. If such an application is filed, the same should be considered on its own merit in accordance with law. The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh,ACJ.)