IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.2636 of 2010 VEERESH KUMAR SINHA, son of Satyadeo Narayan Sinha alias Ramji Babu, resident of Muhalla- Club Road, Ara near Pir Baba Mazar, Police Station- Nawada, District- Arrah ….Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR & 2. Jay Prakash Singh, Public Prosecutor, Civil Court, Patna …Opposite Parties With Cr. Misc. No. 8392 of 2010 1. SATYADEO NARAYAN SINHA son of Late Mahadeo Lal 2. Urmila Devi w/o Satyadeo Narayan Sinha, & 3. Rantesh Kumar Sinha, son of Satyadeo Narayan Sinha All resident of Muhalla- Club Road, Ara near Pir Baba Mazar, Police Station- Nawada, District- Arrah ….Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR & 2. Jay Prakash Singh, Public Prosecutor, Civil Court, Patna …Opposite Parties ----------- 2/ 16.09.2010 Heard the parties. The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 18.12.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, in Complaint Case No.2060 (C-2) of 2008, by which cognizance has been taken in the matter and summons have been issued to the accused persons. The background of the case is that a case under section 498-A Indian Penal Code was filed by the sister-in-law, daughter-in- law and wife of the present petitioners respectively. The petitioners filed application for anticipatory bail before the court below annexing a document purportedly issued by one Yashwant A. - 2 - Nikam, ASI of Dhankabri Police Chauki, Sahkarnagar, P.S. Pune, dated 10.2.2005 which stood in favour of the petitioners. Subsequently, an objection was raised by the Public Prosecutor that the document was forged and fabricated and thereafter the present complaint was filed in the matter. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, on the written complaint of the Public Prosecutor concerned took cognizance in the matter and issued summons as stated above. The petitioners have sought quashing on the ground that a mandatory enquiry in view of amended section 200(2) Cr. P. C. was not held and therefore, cognizance was bad. Further submission is that there was total non application of mind on behalf of the court concerned since he did not mention the offence which was made out against the accused persons. Further submission is that since only the Public Prosecutor and the two advocates, who had acted on behalf of the petitioners, were mentioned as witnesses and their testimony being oral was not sufficient to secure justice to any of the parties. The subsequent report from the police station also had no meaning since the person who had issued it was neither examined nor cited as a witness. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that all these points would be available to the petitioners at the stage of framing of charge and, therefore, this court should not interfere in the matter. In my view, there cannot be any doubt that a forged document if used for securing an order is a very serious matter and needs be properly enquired by the court concerned. The Chief - 3 - Judicial Magistrate, Patna, should have made spirited efforts to hold a proper enquiry in the matter as envisaged under section 202 Cr.P.C. or could have taken recourse by directing an investigation to be made by the police or by such other persons as he thought fit before proceeding in the matter. For this reason, the applications are disposed of with direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, to hold /or order for further enquiry in the matter by a person he deems fit so that no party is allowed to subvert the course of justice and proceed thereafter in accordance with law. The enquiry should be concluded as early as possible preferably within a period of three months. The order issuing summons is, therefore, set aside and the applications are disposed off with the observation stated above. JA/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)