IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.52027 of 2007 1. RADHA KANTA MANI TRIPATHI, son of Vikarma Tripathi, 2. Harey Ram Mani Tripathi, son of Radha Kant Mani Tripathi, & 3. Smt. Sobha Mani, wife of Harey Ram Mani Tripathi, All are resident of village- Chaffwan, P.S.-Bhory, District-Gopalganj ...Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR & 2. Subhash Tiwari, son of Late Chandradeo Tiwari, resident of village- Sheoraipur, P.S. Bhorey, District- Gopalganj. …Opposite Parties ----------- 3/ 19.03.2010 Heard the parties. The petitioners have filed this application for quashing the order of cognizance passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj, in Complaint Case no. 2148 of 1999, by which cognizance has been taken under sections 420, 465 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners. The case of the complainant is that the accused persons opened a branch office named “EUCLIP FORESTORY (INDIA) LTD., a non-banking organization, in the village of the complainant, wherein, petitioner no.1 declared himself to the Branch Manager, petitioner no.2, son of petitioner no.1, was the Cashier and petitioner no.3, wife of petitioner no.2, was the Collecting Agent of the organization. After having taken daily deposits from the number of depositors for several years, they were not given any benefits of their deposits and on enquiry it was found out that the organization, which claimed its head office at Gorakhpur, was found to be fake institution. After examination of one witness under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, dismissed the complaint on the ground that the officials - 2 - of the Head Office were not made accused and, therefore, the complaint was not maintainable. As against the order of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, the opposite party no.2-complainant went in revision before the Sessions Judge, who set aside the order of dismissal of the complaint and thereafter cognizance was taken as stated above. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were merely local agents at the P.O. village and it could not be held that they have cheated the complainant or committed forgery since they were acting on behalf of its officials at the head office. From the perusal of complaint petition, I find that the petitioners have clearly cheated the opposite party no.2 by misrepresenting itself to be a non-banking organization and forging its document. At this stage, this court is unable to go into the full details of the facts of the case. Under the circumstances, this application is dismissed. JA/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)