CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35238 OF 2001 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure -------- Chhatradhari Prasad, Son of Late Bhagwat Prasad, resident of Village-Sisai, Police Station-Bhorey, District- Gopalganj --- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Indradeo Manjhi, Son of Chandrika Manjhi 3. Ram Chandra Prasad, Anchal Adhikari, Bhorey, through Secretary, Personnel Department, Govt. of Bihar,Patna 4. Braj BNhushan Verma, Circle Inspector,Bhorey through District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Gopalganj. 5. Satruhan Singh, Karamchari ,Bhorey Block through Collector, Gopalganj 6. Panchanand Mishra, Son of Kalika Mishra, resident of Village-Sisai, P.S. Bhorey, District-Gopalganj 7. Dharmdeo Mishra, Son of Balbhadra Mishra resident of Village-Sisai, P.S. Bhorey, District-Gopalganj 8. Awadh Kishore Shahi, Son of Kashi Pd. Shahi, resident of Village- Karmasho, P.S. Bhorey, District- Gopalganj --- Opp.Parties. --------------- For the petitioner : S/Sri Ajay Kumar Thakur, Bimal Kumar & Imteyaz Ahmad, Advocates For the State : Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. For Opp.Party nos.2 to 8:S/Sri Ashutosh Jha Mahendra Pandey, Advocates ---------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. The sole petitioner, who was complainant before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj, has come before this Court with a prayer to quash the order dated 4.6.2001 passed in Cr.Revision No.329 of 2000 by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Gopalganj , whereby he has rejected the revision filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order dated 30.8.2000 passed by 2 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj in Complaint Case No.1508 of 1999. By the order dated 30.8.2000 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had rejected the complaint petition filed by the petitioner under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Short fact of the case is that the petitioner filed a complaint on 19.8.1999 in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj, which was registered as Complaint Case No.1508 of 1999. In the Complaint petition seven persons, who were mostly government officials, were arrayed as accused for commission of offences under Sections 167,193,420,465, 466, 467 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. In the case the period of occurrence was alleged in between 1982 and 16.6.1988. After conducting enquiry, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, rejected the complaint case on several grounds and one of the grounds for rejection was that no sanction for prosecution was obtained. Against rejection of complaint case, by order dated 30.8.2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj , the petitioner filed a revision vide Cr.Revision No.329 of 2000, which too stood rejected on 4.6.2001. 3. Aggrieved with both the orders, i.e. order of rejection of complaint case as well as rejection of revision petition, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition. On 3.7.2002 this Court directed for issuance of notice to Opp.Party nos.2 to 8 for filing their show cause and finally on 3 27.1.2004, the case was admitted and lower court record was also called for and the matter remained pending before this Court for a long time. 4. Sri Ajay Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while questioning both the orders, has argued that it was specific case of forgery and preparation of forged documents by public servants, who were accused in the case. It was further submitted that since the accused persons were alleged for commission of offences under Sections 466,467,420, 120B and other allied Sections of the Indian Penal Code, there was no requirement for obtaining sanction before taking cognizance of the offences. It was submitted by Sri Thakur , learned counsel for the petitioner that for the purposes of taking cognizance under Sections 120B and 467 of the Indian Penal Code, there is no requirement to obtain prosecution sanction, since those offences cannot be treated as an offence committed during the discharge of official duty. It was submitted that during enquiry sufficient materials were produced by the complainant but the learned Magistrate in a mechanical manner has rejected the complaint petition. It was submitted that on record more than sufficient materials were available to proceed with the case, but the learned Magistrate has rejected the complaint petition, which is illegal and liable to be set aside. 5. Sri Ashuthosh Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party nos. 2 to 8 has vehemently opposed the prayer 4 of the petitioner. 6. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has supported the stand taken by Sri Ashuotosh Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party nos. 2 to 8. 7. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. Without going into the merit of the case the Court considers that it is not a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners keeping in view the fact that as per complaint petition itself, the period of occurrence was in between 1982 and 1988 and the case is stale one. 8. Without giving any opinion on the merit of the case, the petition stands rejected on the ground of matter being stale. Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 16th August,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/ N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J )