SHIVJI PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 31.3.2000 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali in Complaint Case No.59 of 2000, Tr.No.1384 of 2000. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that on an allegation of making interpolation and forgery in the case record in Claim Case No.62 of 1995, an enquiry was conducted by the 4th Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Vaishali and thereafter an official complaint vide Complaint Case No.59 of 2000 was filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur. In the complaint case, it was alleged that a Claim case was filed under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act on behalf of one Kanti Devi, whose husband died in a road accident. The Claim Petition was filed for an amount of Rs.10 lakhs. After filing of the complaint, it was reported by the office that on the claim of Rs.10 Lakhs, Rs. 10,000/- court fee was required. After deposit of Rs.5000/- i.e. half of the amount of the court fees, ad interim compensation would be paid. It was reported by Sheristedar that the date in the case was fixed to 20.8.1999 for hearing. On 20.8.1999 appearance was filed by the petitioner, who was an Advocate appearing on behalf of the claimant. It was alleged in the complaint petition that the petitioner took the record of Claim Case No.62 of 1995 from the Bench Clerk, namely, Sri Hasmat Heyat Khan and thereafter, the petitioner wrongly inspected the record and in the original plaint at paragraph 23 ( M) , he deleted one Zero from the digit of Rs.10,00,000/- by ball-pen and he also put his initial below the cutting, whereas in the original petition at paragraph-21 , it was mentioned as Rs.10,00,000/- in digit and also (ten lacks) in words. It was alleged that with a view to save Rs.9000/- court-fees amount, unauthorisedly cutting was made in the original record and the complainant was of the view that in the main record of Case No.62 of 1995, a forgery was committed . It was disclosed in the complaint petition that on such allegation against the petitioner, an enquiry vide Misc. Case No.2 of 1999 was registered .In the said enquiry, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, but he refused to accept the same. The show cause notice issued to the petitioner was also made part of the complaint petition. On the allegation of making forgery in the court record, a complaint was filed and the learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 31.3.2000 has taken cognizance of offences, as mentioned above.

(3.) Aggrieved with the order of cognizance dated 31.3.2000 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali in Complaint Case No.59 of 2000, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition.