NARESH MAHRAJ Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners and the Addl. P.P. The advocate on record representing 15. Opp. Party No. 1 is not present but on his behalf Mr. Krishna Singh, Advocate appears and prays for adjournment which is refused.

(2.) THE present revision application has been directed against the order dated 11th June, 1998 passed by 11th Addl. Sessions Judge, Chapra who set aside the Order dated 17 -2 -97 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Chapra in Case No. 26 of 1997 and directed for further inquiry in the case.

(3.) THE view taken by the Additional Sessions Judge is manifestly wrong and erroneous, inasmuch, as the forged report of Sarpanch was produced by the petitioners in a proceeding under Sec. 144 of 40. the Cr. P.C. in the Court of S.D.O., Sonepur. As such, it was the S.D.O., Sonepur who was only competent to make an inquiry regarding the forged document used in the proceeding under Sec. 144. of the Cr. P.C. pending in his Court and after being satisfied that the said forgery has been committed by the petitioners, he could have filed the complaint petition. The provisions of Sec. 195 (1) of the Cr. P.C. may usefully be quoted as under: No Court shall take cognizance -(b)(ii) -of