IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.10134 of 2008 DR.RANA PRATAP, S/O RAJENDRA PRASAD THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KADRUCHAK, P.S. & DISTRICT BANKA .. PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR .. OPPOSITE PARTY **** /2/ 14.05.2010 Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed for quashing the order, dated 10.12.2007, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka, in G.R. Case No. 1264 of 2004 arising out of Katoria (Jaipur) P.S. Case No. 157 of 2004 by which the prayer of the petitioner is to discharge, from the criminal case, against him. 3. The prosecution case, as alleged in the written report of the Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Jaipur Branch, Banka, that a savings bank account was opened in the UCO Bank of Jaipur Branch under Banka district and one Harendra Sharma was the introducer. The photograph of Paltan Das was verified by this petitioner, Dr. Rana Pratap, and the loan was sanctioned under S.G.S.Y. scheme. The thumb impression was identified by Panchayat Sevak, Subhash, and since Paltan Das was Harijan by caste and has the subsidy of rupees ten thousand and the amount of rupees twenty thousand was deposited in his account and 2 rupees twenty thousand was withdrawn on 30.05.2002 and subsequently rupees five thousand was also withdrawn on 27.06.2002 and at the time of payment the thumb impression given by Paltan Das was verified by Harendra Sharma. It has further been alleged that the time of the recovery of the loan when legal notice was given to Paltan Das then Paltan Das informed that he has not taken any loan and neither he has opened savings bank account and photograph identified is also did not tally with Paltan Das and then on enquiry and verification it was found that the photograph available in the account does not belong to Paltan Das and the said photograph is of some other person, which has been verified by Dr. Rana Pratap, who is this petitioner. 4. On the said written report, first information report was lodged and charge sheet submitted in series and the third charge sheet shows that this petitioner is an accused on which the cognizance taken and summon was issued and the petitioner has filed this petition to discharge him. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that earlier a petition was filed by Kali Prasad (Cr. Misc. No. 26930 of 2006, disposed off on 22.05.2007) for quashing the order taking cognizance against him, a co-accused, 3 who was the Branch Manager of the Bank. 6. The learned counsel for the State, however, submits that the case of the petitioner is quite on different footing. There is specific allegation that the petitioner identified the photograph, but, the said photograph does not belong to Paltan Chaudhary and, further, the impugned order passed does not suffer from any illegality and the learned lower Court in its detailed order has passed a reasoned order that there is sufficient material against petitioner in the case diary with specific mention of the paragraphs 6, 23, 24, 36, 47, 89, 159, 168 and 124. 7. However, having regard to the submissions and the contention of the petitioner that he has only attested the photograph and merely attestation of photograph is not a crime. However, having regard to the facts that the attested photograph found to be not of the person whose account has been opened and money deposited has been taken out and photograph identified does not tally itself indicate the involvement of the petitioner. However, at the stage of framing of the charge the learned Magistrate is only required to satisfy whether there is sufficient material in the case diary to prima facie establishing that the case can be proceeded against the accused person. However, the case of the petitioner is quite contrary to the case 4 of Kali Prasad and in the said impugned order itself it has been mentioned that the account was opened on the introduction of Harendra Sharma and the photograph has been identified by this petitioner, Dr. Rana Pratap, who is involved in opening the account in the fake name and in that view of the mater it was found that there is no evidence against Kali Prasad and so the cognizance against him was not found in accordance with law. However, the case of the petitioner is quite different than the case of Kali Prasad and, hence, the learned Magistrate after perusing the case diary and after due application of mind passed the impugned order rejecting the petition for discharge and ordered for taking cognizance and has referred the various paragraphs of the case diary regarding the material evidence. Hence, at this stage the satisfaction of the Magistrate is sufficient even he has passed a detailed and reasoned order dismissing the discharge petition. 8. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in this petition. 9. This application is rejected. S.A. ( Gopal Prasad, J. )