IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12518 of 2009 Naresh Das, son of Late Fagu Das, resident of Mohalla- Sikandarpur, P.O. Mirjahat, P.S. Mojahidpur, District:- Bhagalpur. …………………………………Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Bhago Das, wife of Chhotan Das, resident of Village- Sikandarpur, Harijan Tola, P.S. Mojahidpur, District- Bhagalpur. ……………………………..Respondents. For the petitioner :- Mr. Indrajeet Jha, Advocate. For the State :- Mr. Damodar Pd. Tiwary, A.P.P. ----------- 3. 12. 01. 2011. Heard. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 21. 10. 2008, by which cognizance has been taken for offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code, in Kotwali (Tatarpur) P.S. Case No. 23/06 (G.R. No. 75/06). 2. The prosecution case as alleged that complainant/informant impressed by the petitioner that she will get loan. Thereafter, signatures of several persons along with the complainant/informant were taken at the instigation of this petitioner and this petitioner assured that they will get loan immediately. After several years, an officer of the Bank came to complainant/informant and enquired about sanctioned loan amount then the complainant/informant went to the Bank and came to know that loan amount was 2 already sanctioned against her name and amount has already been withdrawn by the accused. 3. It is alleged that victim is a illiterate lady and her signature was taken on plain paper and amount has taken under the conspiracy of the petitioner. 4. However, on the basis of the complaint, F.I.R. has been lodged. Police submitted charge sheet and on the basis of charge sheet, cognizance has been taken. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, contends that he is one of the Director in the committee of Board of Directors of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribe Development Corporation and as such he has been very much concern for the welfare and upliftment of the fellow caste man and hence he has nothing to do with the loan amount. 6. It has further been contended that vide letter as contained in Annexure-3, an inquiry was set up in connection with grant of loan by the concerned department and the District Executive Officer, Bhagalpur, submitted a report the complicity of petitioner Naresh Das does not appear as distribution of loan concern with Bank Manager. 7. However, allegation made in the complaint, 3 has specifically mentioned implicitly of the petitioner was instrumental to the complainant to persuade her to get loan and signature was taken on the plain paper as well as the loan paper and said loan taken. The allegation made clearly makes out an offence. On the basis of which investigation proceeded and cognizance has been taken after submission of the charge sheet. 8. Moreover, when allegation made makes out an offence, the, defence of the accused can not be considered at this stage of quashing of the complaint or the F.I.R. or order taking cognizance. 9. Hence, I do not find any merit in this case. However, if so advised, petitioner may raise his issue at the time of framing of the charge. Hence, this petition is hereby dismissed. m.p. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)