IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10443 of 2009 BHUPENDRA KAPRI, Son of Late Hari Mohan Kapri, resident of village- Ramanaka Bad, Police Station- Haveli Kharagpur, District- Munger, at present residing at Fort Area, Munger, P.S. Kotwali, District- Munger. … Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR With Cr.Misc. No. 10442 of 2009 BHUPENDRA PRASAD KAPRI, Son of Late Hari Mohan Kapri, resident of village- Ramanaka Bad, Police Station- Haveli Kharagpur, District- Munger, at present residing at Fort Area, Munger, P.S. Kotwali, District- Munger. … Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 03.05.2011. These two quashing applications arising out of the same complaint case i.e. Complaint Case No. 367C of 2004 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Munger. 2. Petitioner is the complainant. He had filed complaint case against twelve officers of the B.S.N.L. under Sections 420, 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code. An inquiry was held, however the petitioner was unable to produce any evidence in the inquiry and as such the matter was taken up for hearing. By order dated 28.6.2004, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger has passed the detailed 2 order by which he has considered the evidence produced by the complainant and thereafter held that only six out of twelve of the persons could be held prima facie responsible for offences under Sections 166, 167 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The persons who have been held responsible and made accused filed Cri. Revision No.276 of 2004, the Revisional Court upheld the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger ought to have taken cognizance under Sections 420, 467, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code as the accused persons had failed to perform the duty, rather they had with the intention to cheat the petitioner sent a bill to him, which was completely illegal and unauthorized. Thus the petitioner has filed Cr. Misc. No. 10442 of 2009 challenging the order taking cognizance under Section 166, 167, and 193 of the Indian Penal Code only. 4. The second quashing application has been filed challenging that part of the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate & the Fast Track Court No.1, Munger by which the Courts had summoned only six out of twelve accused 3 persons. The Court concludes that the reasons for exempting the six accused is completely justified, as they are not at all responsible for the calculation made while presenting the bill. 5. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the reasonings of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger or the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No-I, Munger. The contention of the petitioner that other sections are made out can always be raised at any proper stage of the case. 5. These two applications are thus dismissed. Ibrar/- ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)