Criminal Miscellanious No.41430 OF 2007 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. VIJAY KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE CHANDRAMANI SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KRIPAGANJ, P.S. SILAO, DISTRICT NALANDA. ----- PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----- OPPOSITE PARTY For the petitioner :- Mr. Satyavrat Verma, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN S.A. Khan, J. The petitioner has challenged the order of cognizance dated 15.5.2007 by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda has passed an order taking cognizance under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The Sub-divisional Officer, Biharsharif has instituted a First Information Report alleging that the petitioner who was a Nazir at the office of the Sub-divisional Officer, Biharsharif did not hand over the entire charge of the office after the transfer from the office of the Sub-divisional Officer, Biharsharif to the office in Sadar, Biharsharif. It is said that one Satish Chandra Rai reported that the petitioner had handed over the charge of vourchers for the period 2004-05, 2 2005-06 and 2006-07. 3. At the first instance this case was investigated and the police, at paragraph 16 has stated that it appears to be a case of mistake of facts. However, on the instructions of the Superintendent of Police, the charge was submitted and eventually cognizance taken under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of the statement of Satish Chandra Rai without even holding a preliminary enquiry to ascertain the circumstances in which the petitioner had not handed over charge or without asking for an explanation from the petitioner, this First Information Report has been instituted. The facts that have been mentioned in the First Information Report could well be a subject matter of a departmental enquiry, if the officers had come to the conclusion that charge was not handed over. It is not the case that the petitioner has misappropriated the documents from the office of the Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar, therefore, I do not see how 3 the Court would have concluded that an offence is made out under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The submission of the charge sheet also smacks of malice inasmuch as once the Investigating Officer had come to the conclusion that it was the case of mistake of facts, the reversion of the finding indicates that the matters were settled somewhere at the top. In any event, the order taking cognizance dated 15.5.2007 in Bihar P.S. Case No. 245 of 2006 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda is quashed. 6. This application is allowed. Patna High Court, 12th of May, 2011, Sanjay/N.A.F.R. ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)