Criminal Miscellaneous No.22942 OF 1999 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure --------- RAKESH, Son of Jagdish Prasad Singh, resident of Village-Katari, Police Station-Korma, District-Sheikhpura -------- Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR -- Opp.Party. --------- For the petitioner : S/Sri Pushkar Narain Shahi & Arun, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Murlidhar, A.P.P. --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 23.7.1999 passed by Sri P.K.Dikshit , Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sheikhpura, in G.R.No.536 of 1995( arising out of Sheikhpura P.S. Case No.265 of 1995). By the said order, the learned Magistrate has refused to discharge the petitioner and the court was of the view that there is material for framing of charges under Sections 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and directed the accused/petitioner to remain physically present on 17.8.1999 for the purpose of framing of the charges. 2. Short fact of the case is that on the basis of a 2 written report of the District Superintendent of Education, Sheikhpura, an F.I.R. vide Sheikhpura P.S. Case No.265 of 1995 was registered naming the petitioner as accused for offence under Sections 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged in the written report that an enquiry was conducted and it was found that the petitioner got his admission in Teachers Training School, Sheikhpura on the basis of forged Matriculation Certificate as well as on an allegation that the petitioner, though, had failed in the Graduation examination, on the basis of forged certificate, he was continuing in service. It was alleged that the accused petitioner for his personal gain has forged documents and on the basis of said written report, an F.I.R. was lodged. After investigating the case, police found the allegation as true and thereafter a chargesheet was submitted in the case in the month of April, 1996. 3. After the cognizance order was passed by the learned Magistrate and the completion of supply of police papers under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when the case reached to the stage of charge, a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the discharge petition, a specific plea was taken by the petitioner that on the same charge a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and on 14.8.1995 he was put under suspension and 3 subsequently, he was dismissed on 26.10.1995. It was pleaded that the dismissal order was challenged before this Court vide C.W.J.C.No.12062 of 1995 and this Court quashed the order of dismissal. After hearing the parties, the learned Magistrate by its order dated 23.7.1999 rejected the discharge petition and fixed the case to 17.8.1999 with a direction to the petitioner to remain present for framing of charge. 4. Aggrieved by the order of rejection of discharge petition, the petitioner of this case has filed the present petition. Sri P.N.Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the order of rejection of discharge petition, submits that once this Court in a civil writ jurisdiction ,after getting the matter inquired by the University, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner had not used any forged or false Graduation Certificate, there was no purpose in proceeding with the criminal case for the same charge. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to Annexures 4 and 6 to the petition, which are photo copies of the orders in the aforesaid writ petition, submits that this Court had come to the conclusion that for the purposes of admission in the Teachers Training School, minimum qualification was Intermediate and not Matriculation. He submits that since the minimum qualification for admission was Intermediate, there was no occasion for the petitioner to produce a forged certificate relating to Matriculation Examination. He further 4 submits that the departmental proceeding, which was initiated on the basis of same and similar allegation, had finally come to an end by the order passed by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Annexure-10 to the petition, which is a typed copy of order dated 9.8.1999 passed by the learned Magistrate. While referring to the said order, Sri Shahi submits that the allegation of forging Matriculation Certificate as well as Graduation Certificate is not sustainable in view of the fact that neither copy of such documents were supplied to the petitioner at the stage of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, nor same were filed by the police along with the police papers. Accordingly, he has submitted that no purpose will be served by allowing the criminal proceeding in the present case to proceed further due to the reason that there is no chance of conviction of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further challenged the impugned order on the ground that the learned Magistrate without examining the relevant document has rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioner. Sri Shahi has relied upon a Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported on 1996 (9) SCC 766; Satish Mehra Vrs.Delhi Administration. He submits that in view of Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was duty on the part of the learned Magistrate to examine all the materials available on the record and only thereafter the learned Magistrate was required to pass order on 5 the discharge petition. He submits that the learned Magistrate without following the prescribed procedure has rejected the discharge petition. 5. Sri A.M.P. Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that this Court ,while allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, had not examined the entire materials , but on the basis of pleadings as well as an enquiry report, which was submitted by the University, had passed the order that, too, in a case relating to departmental proceeding. He further submits that appreciation of evidence, in a departmental proceeding and a criminal case is not exactly similar and, as such, on the ground of dismissal order, the petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the criminal proceeding. He has further submitted that the entire evidence is to be looked into during the trial and for coming to a definite conclusion regarding innocence of the petitioner in the present petition, this Court will have to conduct a mini trial and only then such finding can be recorded. Accordingly, he has prayed for rejection of the present petition. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also examined the materials available on the record. I have also minutely examined the impugned order, i.e. order dated 23.7.1999. The learned Magistrate, even while rejecting the discharge petition, has examined sufficient 6 materials, which were brought on record. The learned Magistrate has also examined the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner relating to the order passed in C.W.J.C.No.12062 of 1995. The learned Magistrate has noticed that though the petitioner had obtained 408 marks out of 900 in Matriculation Examination, the petitioner had shown marks of Matriculation as 622 out 900. The learned Magistrate has also examined several paragraphs of the case diary and other materials, which is evident from the impugned order. I am of the view that the learned Magistrate has examined the discharge petition in detail as well as materials available on the records of the case by assigning detail reason; he has rejected the discharge petition. So far the decision cited by Sri Shahi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, i.e. Satish Mehra’s case (Supra) is concerned, I am of the view that there is no dispute on the question of law. However, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that the learned Magistrate had delved into the matter in detail and thereafter the impugned order was passed. So far the material relating to question of framing of charge is concerned, the law is settled on the point that even in a case of strongest suspicion of commission of occurrence charges can be framed. However in the present case, it is not only a case of strongest suspicion, but there is sufficient materials to prove the charge. There were prima facie materials for proceeding with the case. 7 7. So far as the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C.No.12062 of 1995 is concerned, it is evident from the order that in the departmental proceeding without giving any opportunity to the petitioner the order of dismissal was passed, which was noticed by this Court in its writ jurisdiction and this was also one of the reasons for setting aside the order of dismissal. I am of the view that in a criminal case whatever evidence is produced before the trial court are to be looked into by the Court and, as such, the petitioner is not going to get any benefit by the order passed by the writ court. The criminal case is to be decided on the basis of evidence produced before the trial court. So far Annexure-10 is concerned, I am of the view that this was one of the trick adopted by the petitioner to delay framing of the charges. The police paper in criminal case is to be supplied under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and only after completion of supply of police paper; the case comes to the stage of charge. In the present case, once the petitioner had filed a petition for discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there was no occasion for the petitioner to file subsequent petition on the plea of supply of certain police papers. This obviously was done with a view to delay framing of the charges. The discharge petition was rejected on 23.7.1999 and while rejecting the discharge petition, the learned Magistrate had directed the petitioner to come 8 physically on 17.8.1999 for framing of the charges. However, before the next date, a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner for supply of certain police papers, which was rejected on 9.8.1999. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances as discussed above, I am of the view that while rejecting the discharge petition, the learned Magistrate has committed no error and, accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the petition stands rejected. 9. In view of the rejection of the present petition, the interim order of stay i.e. order dated 18.2.2000, whereby further proceeding in the court below was directed to remain stayed , stands automatically vacated. 10. Since the commencement of the trial in the present case was stayed by order dated 18.2.2000 and the present case remained pending for about 10 years, I am of the view that the learned court below may be directed to expedite the commencement and conclusion of the trial. Accordingly, the trial court is directed to proceed with the case expeditiously in accordance with law. 11. It goes without say that whatever observation has been recorded in the present case in respect of the offences will not prejudice the court below. 12. With the above observation and direction, the petition stands rejected. 9 Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. Patna High Court,Patna Dated: the 4th May,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar,J)