CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.368 OF 2007 --------- In the matter4 of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ---------- 1. Rambabu Prasad @ Rambabu Sah, Son of- Ram Preet Sah, 2. Pankaj @ Vishal Anand, Son of – Rambabu Prasad, both resident of Mohalla- Ratnapatti, P.S. and District- Darbhanga, 3. Smt. Kanchan Devi, W/O- Raj Kishore at present residing at Mohalla- Ratna patti, P.S. and District- Darbhanga. …………….Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Md. Shamim Ahmad, S/O Late Abdul Sattar, C/O Ram Pratap Prasad, resident of N/22, Chitragupta Nagar, under Patrakar Nagar, P.S. Kankarbagh, Patna ……….Opposite Parties ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate. For the O.P. : None For the State : Hirday Prasad Singh, A.P.P. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. Three petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 25.2.2004 passed by Sri R.K.Rai, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case no. 2524(c)of 2003. By the said order learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian penal Code and directed for summoning accused person including the three petitioners. 2. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no. 2, filed a complaint case in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, which was numbered as Complainant Case No. 2524 (C) of 2003 against one Raj Kishore, who was a share broker and the three petitioners. It was alleged that the complainant was persuaded by the accused no. 1 to invest in the share business and from 1996 to 2003 the complainant had invested altogether Rs. 6,93,587/-. It was submitted that despite the investment was made by the complainant neither any debenture nor profit was ever given to the complainant and subsequently, it transpired that accused no. 1 after closing the business was trying to shift somewhere else and accordingly, the complaint petition was filed. After filing of the complaint petition, enquiry was done and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against petitioners under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code by its order dated 25.2.2004. 3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition. 4. Mr. Kumar Manish, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while challenging the order of cognizance against three petitioners, has submitted that in the complaint petition no averment has been made showing commission of any offence by the three petitioners. While referring to Annexure 1 to the petition that is a copy of the complaint petition, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that in Paragraph 9 of the complaint petition, only relationship of petitioners with accused no. 1 has been described and it has been mentioned that all the accused persons were in active collusion with each other. Accordingly it has been submitted that in absence of any averment disclosing commission of any offence, the learned Magistrate was not required to take cognizance even against the three petitioners. Accordingly, it has been prayed to set aside the order of cognizance and entire proceeding against the petitioners. At the time of hearing Mr. Kumar Manish, learned counsel for the petitioners has produced photo copy of certified copy of order dated 20.11.2007 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 4464 of 2007 passed by a Bench of this court. It has been submitted that accused no. 1 Raj Kishore was a share Broker and he was closely related to the three petitioners had earlier also a complaint was filed against Raj Kishore, in which the three petitioners were arrayed as accused. After order of cognizance Cr. Misc. No. 4464 of 2007 was filed and the same was allowed(Photo copy of Order of Cr. Misc. No. 4464 of 2007 passed on 20.11.2007 is kept with the record). 5. In this case despite the fact that opposite party no. 2 had appeared through an advocate, none has appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2 at the time of hearing of this petition. 6. Sri Hirday Prasad Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appears on behalf of the State. 7. Besides hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I have also perused the material on record, particularly averments made in the complaint petition. After going through the complaint petition, the Court is satisfied that no offence is made out against the petitioners. 8. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 25.2.2004 passed by Sri R.K.Rai, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 2524(C)of 2003, so far as three petitioners are concerned is hereby set aside and petition stands allowed. (Rakesh Kumar, J) PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 26.10.2006 Bhardwaj/NAFR