IN THE HIGH COUR T OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7221 of 2010 Mrs.Basundhara Sinha Versus The State Of Bihar & Anr ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate. Mrs. Priya Choubey, Advocate. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. K. Shankar, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. K.K. Sinha, Advocate ----------- 3 21.10.2011 Supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Taken on record. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner Mrs. Basundhara Sinha for quashing of Kadamkuan P.S. Case No.1005 of 2004 registered under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the I.P.C. which was instituted on the basis of Complaint Petition bearing no. 2911(c) of 2004. After hearing both sides as well as going through the relevant Annexures, it is evident that there was fraudulent withdrawal of 4,27,068/- from the savings accounts of petitioner bearing no.01190007475 having at State Bank of India, Rajendra Nagar Branch for which on the written report of petitioner, Kadamkuan P.S. Case No.918 of 2004 was registered under Section 409, 420, 467, 468,471/120B of the I.P.C. Later on, the then Assistant General Manager of SBI, namely, Ignatius Fidelis filed Complaint Petition bearing no. 2911(c) of 2004 against petitioner including Pawan Kumar Sinha and Rajeev Shahi which was sent to the P.S. concerned under Section 156(3) 2 of the Cr.P.C. and on the basis of which, Kadamkuan P.S. Case No.1005 of 2004 was instituted under Section 420, 467, 468, 471/120B of the I.P.C. alleging inter alia that the accused persons themselves have conspired and withdrawn the aforesaid amount appertaining to Rs. 4,27,068/- During course of hearing, vide order dated 30.11.2010 this Court had asked for an explanation from the Investigating Officer through Senior S.P. and the report is on the record as Annexure-X. After going through the report, it is evident that the police during investigation had identified Rajeev Shahi @ Niteshwar Prasad Narayan Shahi who after forging signature of petitioner submitted an application before the bank, got another set of cheque and then thereafter got the amount withdrawn after forging signature of petitioner over the aforesaid cheque book which was received by him in place of petitioner by forging her signature. The report further speaks that the signature over concerned cheque were tallied with the handwriting of accused, Rajeev Shahi @ Niteshwar Prasad Narayan Shahi under forensic investigation and this fact was confirmed. The report further speaks that in the aforesaid background, Kadamkuan P.S. Case No.1005 of 2004 has been amalgamated with Kadamkuan P.S. Case No.918 of 2004, which was instituted on the basis of written report 3 submitted by petitioner and the supplementary affidavit submitted by the petitioner herself discloses that charge sheet had already been submitted against Rajeev Shahi @ Niteshwar Prasad Narayan Shahi and the status of petitioner has been identified as informant as per column 4 of the formal FIR as well as witnesses of the case followed with taking of cognizance. Because of the fact that there has been amalgamation of Kadamkuan P.S. Case No.1005 of 2004 in Kadamkuan P.S. Case No.918 of 2004, in that event the independent identity of Kadamkuan P.S. Case No.1005 of 2004 evaporated and on account thereof, instant petition has become infructuous and is accordingly disposed of. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner will see her interest jeopardized at the subsequent stage of trial she will be at liberty to raise her grievance. PN (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)