IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.23452 of 2010 SUNAINA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 6.7.2010 This petition has been placed before the Court under the heading “for orders on office notes” on the defect pointed out by the Stamp Reporter that the petitioner ought to have preferred a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner requested the Court to hear the petition and dispose it of on its merit. It appears that the case was initiated on a petition of complaint bearing No. 116 C of 1992 filed by the complainant which was pending on 3.4.2010 before Shri V.V. Yadav, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jehanabad, vide Tr. No. 569 of 2007 indicating to the learned Magistrate that accused Umesh Malla had furnishing the bail bond and the same has been signed by a dead person. Thus, it was alleged that the signature or L.T.I. of the bailor or the receipt produced in proof of possession of the property held in security was all forged and fabricated. The accused was required by the court to file his reply and he refuted the allegation. The Magistrate after hearing the parties rejected the petition and directed the accused Umesh Mallah to furnish fresh bail bond on 19.4.2010. What is found by the Court is that the petitioner 2 Sunaina Devi is not the complainant of the case and has been cited as a witness in it. The petition was filed by the complainant. He could be the only person aggrieved, but he has not preferred the present petition. Besides, whether any criminal act was done, the Magistrate was not satisfied about it and, as such, he proceed to pass an appropriate order directing furnishing of fresh bail bond by the accused. It appears from the above facts that the present petition has been filed without there being any basis for filing the petition as it is the satisfaction of the Magistrate whether he decides to hold an inquiry under Section 340 Cr. P.C. or not. This Court is flooded with such frivolous petitions. In the present petition, the petitioner does not have any locus standi and she appears a busy bee. It is out and out a frivolous petition and it is dismissed as of no merit as also on account of being frivolous with a cost of Rs. 500/- being imposed upon he petitioner Sunaina Devi wife of Ramjee Kewat, resident of village Erki,Tola Madarpur, Police Station Jehanabad, District Jehanabad to be realized from the petitioner as a fine. The petition is dismissed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)