Criminal Miscellaneous No.27819 OF 1998 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ------------------ Jagarnath Singh, Son of Late Munshi Singh, resident of Village- Pauni Hassanpur, Police Station- Vaishali in the district of Vaishali -------------- Petitioner Versus 1 The State Of Bihar 2. Jai Mangal Pandit 3. Shiva Shankar Pandit 4. Ram Nandan Pandit , all sons of Late Gajju Pandit 5. Chandeshwar Ram @ Yogendra, Karamchari Halka No.5, Son of name not known All residents of Village- Gopalpur, Police Station-Vaishali, in the district of Vaishali -------------------- Opp.Parties. ------------ For the petitioner : S/Sri Rajendra Kishore Prasad Suresh Chandra Pd.Sinha Ratan Kumar Sinha, Advocates For the State : Sri Chandrasen Pd.Singh, A.P.P. ------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J The sole petitioner, aggrieved with the order dated 18th September, 1998 passed by Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Hajipur, Vaishali in Complaint Case No.1333 of 1997 / Tr.No. 29 A of 1998, has approached this Court while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By the order dated 18th September, 1998, the learned Magistrate had rejected the complaint petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”). While rejecting the complaint, the learned Magistrate observed that the complaint was hit by the provision 2 contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C. 2. Initially the petitioner had filed a complaint petition with an allegation that Opp.Party nos.2 to 5 ( arrayed as accused in the complaint petition) had used forged and fabricated documents in a proceeding initiated under Section 144 Cr.P.C. as well as in a consolidation proceeding. The said complaint was referred to the police for its investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After investigation of the case, the police did not find any substance in the complaint petition and, accordingly, final form was submitted by the police. The petitioner filed a protest petition and the said protest petition was treated as complaint petition and in the said complaint petition, complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and few witnesses were also examined in support of the complaint. However, the learned Magistrate, after noticing the fact that the allegation was in sum and substance related to an offence, which was committed in a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. as well as in a consolidation proceeding, by his order dated 18.9.1998 rejected the complaint merely on the ground that the allegation was barred in view of Section 195 Cr.P.C. 3. Sri Rajendra Kishore Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the order rejecting the complaint petition is not sustainable in the eye of law. He tried to impress upon the court that it was a case of committing forgery and the Opp.Party had forged document and, as such, the learned Magistrate instead of rejecting the complaint petition should have proceeded against accused persons. Learned counsel has also referred to a Judgment of the Hon’ble 3 Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1998 SC 1121 ( Sachida Nand Singh & Anr Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.). He has also referred to Section 195(1b)(ii) Cr.P.C. 4. So far as the case of Sachida Nand Singh (Supra) is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has virtually reiterated the provisions, which has been mentioned in Section 195 Cr.P.C. 5. On perusal of the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C., it is clear that if any allegation is made regarding commission of any offence in relation to the said proceeding, no prosecution shall be lodged save and except with the order or authorization by the concerned court, where such offence was committed. 6. In view of the fact that the complainant has made specific averment that Opp.Parties had committed an offence during a proceeding before the Magistrate under Section 144 Cr.P.C. and also in a consolidation proceeding, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate in his order dated 18.9.1998 has committed no error, while rejecting the same in absence of any authorisation by the concerned court. The learned Magistrate has rightly observed that the prosecution in the case was barred by provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. and, accordingly, the learned Magistrate has rightly rejected the complaint. 7. I do not find any merit in the petition. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 30th March,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J)