IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8861 of 2009 UGRASEN, SON OF SHRI K.N.P. SHRIVASTAVA, THEN RESIDENT OF QUARTER NO. 276, RAILWAY OFFICERS COLONY, P.S. SONEPUR, DISTRICT- CHAPRA, POSTED THEN AS DEPUTY CHIEF MECHANICAL ENGINEER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY IN THE OFFICE OF G.M., E.C. RAILWAY, HAJIPUR. ----- PETITIONER Versus THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. ----- OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- 5 31.7.2009 This application has been filed for quashing the order of cognizance dated 11.9.2008 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I. North, Patna under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7, 8 and 13(2)R/W 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On behalf of the petitioner, several points have been raised in this case. The first point that has been raised is that the complaint petition suggests that the petitioner was the person who was demanding money whereas the recovery report shows that the money was recovered from one Anil Kumar. According to the petitioner it is only on the basis of the ex-culprit statement of Anil Kumar before the police that the petitioner has been made accused in this case. In reply to these submission the counsel appearing for the C.B.I. submits that in fact the C.B.I. had recorded the telephone calls made between the petitioner 2 and Anil Kumar during the course of the day which would indicate that they were in touch with each other. It is also submitted that the C.B.I. would be able to show from evidence that it was only at the later stage that the informant/complainant was asked to pay the money to Anil Kumar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the entire case has been engineered by the complainant Anand Raj along with one Praveen Kumar. The petitioner had made several reports against Anand Raj with respect to his bad performance as a Contractor. Another aspect which has been emphasized by the counsel for the petitioner is that the signature of Praveen Kumar in fact appears to be forged on the document which contains the denomination of the notes which has been seized during the raid. This aspect again can only be dealt with, when the Court has occasion to see the admitted signatures of Praveen Kumar and examine them in the context of the signature so signed. Apart from which learned counsel refers to paragraph 5 of the petition wherein he has given reasons for 3 doubting the veracity of the First Information Report, Procedure and the manner in which the C.B.I. has conducted the entire proceedings. The facts as alleged by the petitioner may or may not be true however, this Court feels that this is not the appropriate stage where the Court can decide and reach a conclusion with respect to the points raised on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner. The facts as alleged will again have to be decided at the appropriate stage. Considering all these aspects, this Court does not think it proper to interfere with the order of cognizance at this stage. The petitioner will have the liberty to move the appropriate forum if he so pleases against this order. It goes without saying that the petitioner would have the opportunity to pray for discharge at the appropriate time. This application is accordingly dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)