SUDAMA PANDIT 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 the order dated 25.2.1999 passed by Sri B.N.Sharan, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari (East Champaran) in Case No.1730 of 1998/Trial No.607 of 1999.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2, who is own brother of the petitioner, filed a complaint vide Complaint Case No.1730 of 1998 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari disclosing therein that in between the complainant and the petitioner some cases were pending in the competent court. It was alleged that the petitioner, who was headmaster of the Government Primary School, Bhusahan, Police Station-Sangrampur, Dist.-East Champaran, and in the capacity of headmaster he was keeping all the records of the school with him. It was alleged that on the date of occurrence i.e. 5.7.1995 and 8.6.1995 though the petitioner put his signature on the attendance register of the school, he was physically present on 5.7.1995 in the court of Sub.Divisional Magistrate and had signed on personal release bond there. Similarly, on 8.6.1995 he had appeared in a proceeding which was pending under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the petitioner had also filed his attendance in the said proceeding. It was alleged that the petitioner had committed an offence of interpolation and forgery in the attendance register. After being examined on solemn affirmation, the complainant also produced three witnesses in support of the complaint case. After examining the materials available on the record, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 25.2.1999 took cognizance of the offences under sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Mr. Yogendra Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the present complaint petition was filed maliciously. He submits that several litigations were pending in between the petitioner and the complainant and due to vengeance the present complaint petition has been filed. Accordingly, he has prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance and all subsequent proceedings on the ground of malicious prosecution.