BAJESHWAR SINGH Vs. RAM BAHADUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Hied a complaint before the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Monghyr Sadar. THE case was numbered as 563-C of 1961. Opposite Party Ram Bahadur Singh, Indu Bhushan Singh and Vikramadityu Singh were named as accused in that case. THE Sub-Divisional Magistrate took cognizance and transferred the case to Mr. Kamdeo Singh, Judicial Magistrate, for trial. THE accused persons surrendered on the 8th June 1962, and were ordered to be released on bail of Rs. 500/- with two sureties of like amount each. THE accused persons furnished bail bonds, and were released on bail on the same day.

(2.) THE petitioner obtained certified copies of two of the bail bonds of the 21st September 1962. THEy showed that one of the sureties was Jamuna Singh who had also put his signature on them. On the 27th October 1962 the petitioner Bled an application, alleging that the bail bonds had been forged because Jamuna Singh had died about ten years earlier, and praying for action against opposite party Ram Bahadur Singh and Indu Bhushan Singh. He filed a similar petition on the 14th November 1962. On the 26th November, 1962, he obtained copies of the same bail bonds, and found that, in the mean time, the signatures and, at places, the names of Jamuna Singh had been cancelled, and those of Shasht Bhushan Singh, son of Jamuna Singh, had been introduced. On the 28th November, 1962, he filed two petitions before the learned Magistrate. In one petition, he prayed that the three bail bonds executed by Ram Bahadur Singh, Indu Bhushan Singh and Vikrarnaditya Singh should be kept in safe custody as they were forged, and some cuttings appeared on them. In the other petition, his prayer was for suitable action being taken, and complaint, as required by law, being filed against the accused opposite party. THE learned Magistrate acceded to both prayers, and called upon the accused opposite party to show cause why action according to law, should not be taken against them. On the 1st December 1962, the learned Magistrate issued notice on the petitioner's application to opposite party Kartik Singh also to show cause why action should not be taken against him. It may be stated that be is a son of Jamuna Singh, and he signed as one of the sureties, jamutia Singh being the other, on two of the bonds, i. e., the bonds executed by Indu Bhushan Singh and Ram Bahadur Singh.

(3.) THE learned Sessions fudge has given several grounds in support of his decision. His first point is that, although a preliminary inquiry is not necessary under Section 476 of the Criminal P. C., the learned Magistrate ought to have held a preliminary inquiry in this ease. It seems to me, however, that there is no reason why the learned Magistrate must have held an inquiry in this case. He heard the parties, and, on the materials before him, he came to the conclusion that this was a fit case in which a complaint should be filed. Whether or not it was necessary for him to hold a preliminary inquiry was a matter of his discretion, and I am unable to say in this case why he should be meld to have exercised his discretion wrongly.