IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5852 of 2009 Mahesh Kumar Bajoriya, son of Sri Girdhari Lal Bajoria, Resident of Sharma Katra, P.S.- Kotwali, Town and District- Bhagalpur. ………………………….Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Pankaj Kumar Jalan, son of Pramod Kumar Jalan, resident of Mohalla-Killa, P.S. Kotwali, District-Munger. 3. Bharat Kumar Janan, son of Late Prahalad Ray Jalan, Proprietor M/S Jalan Investment, Resident of Mohalla- Chauk Bazar, Town Hall Road, P.S. Koteali, District- Munger. ………………………………Opposite Parties. For the petitioner :- Mr. Sanjit Kumar, Advocate. For the State :- Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary,A.P.P. ----------- 4. 07. 12. 2010. Heard. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 21. 06. 2001 for offence under Sections 406 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 51 (C) of 2001, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Munger. The prosecution as alleged in the complaint petition that complainant purchased 50 shares through accused no. 1 Bharat Kumar Jalan from Stock Exchange, Patna, and after purchasing the said share was handed over to accused no. 1 for getting those 50 shares transferred in his name and the 50 shares were transferred in the name of the complainant and after transferring the share all the shares were sent to accused no. 1 and when the complainant demanded those 50 shares then accused no. 1 did not hand over those shares on the pretext that it was not received on 2 transfer. It is further alleged that on 03. 09. 1999, the complainant learnt that accused no. 1 without taking permission and consent of the complainant have sold said shares through accused Mahesh Kumar Bajoriya to M/S Regent Business Private Limited, Kolkata and in the transfer deed forged signature was of Binod Kumar Jalan was made by the accused persons and at the time of transfer of share, then Company refused to respect the transfer on ground that signature of the owner is not being tallied and the purchaser M/S Regent Business Private Limited returned said shares and demanded refund of his money. It is further alleged that accused no.2 are being sold those shares to one Uma Shankar Prasad with forged signature of Binod Kumar Jalan, who himself being witness on the said documents. Hence, having regard to the allegation a clear cut forgery is made out that shares sold by making forged signature of Binod Kumar Jalan, owner of the shares. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that prior to this case, a complaint case was filed by Ankit Securities and Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. against Jalan Investments as well as Binod Kumar Jalan, father of the complainant and in the said complaint Bharat Kumar Jalan is the accused under Section 464 I.P.C. and it is alleged that this petitioner was Branch 3 Manager of Ankit Securities and Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. and hence contends that he has been falsely implicated due to fact he was Branch Manager in Ankit Securities and Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. Hence defence of false implication of the petitioner in this case is concern is not acceptable as the petitioner is neither a complainant and nor names as witness but merely because he is a Brach Manager of Ankit Securities and Finance Company Pvt. Ltd., I do not find any reason for his false implication on those grounds and no case either of malafide or spitting vengeance is made out. However, it is for consideration when there is a case and counter case against each other is no ground to quash the order of taking cognizance when the allegation against the petitioner apparently make out a criminal offence. Then next question that compromise has been made between the petitioner and the complainant. However, the complainant was noticed but even after received of the notice he has not turn up and hence with regard to the compromise, the petitioner may pursue his remedy in the lower court. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, whatever offence as alleged makes out, I do not find any merit in this petition to interfere with the order of taking cognizance and the 4 petition is hereby dismissed. m.p. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)