HARENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the order dated 26.3.1997 passed by Shri N. Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hajipur in Complaint Case No. C1 532 of 1996 by which he has ordered to issue summons against the petitioner for an offence under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 470 of the Indian Penal Code to stand trial. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. appearing for the State. Opposite Party No. 2, in spite of service of notice, did not appear.

(2.) IN the present case a complaint petition was filed by Opposite Party No. 2 stating therein that the petitioner obtained his signatures on 2 -3 blank forms and told that on the basis of those forms, he would get the loan sanctioned from the Bank for purchase of pump and boring sets. The forms were signed on 23.2.1988 but the complainant Opposite Party No. 2 never got money. Suddenly, he got a notice for realisation of the Bank loan and then he learnt that Rs. 10,000/ - was withdrawn by the petitioner in the name of Opposite Party No. 2. After filing of the complaint, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance in the case and transferred the case to the court of Shri N.Prasad Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hajipur under section 192(2) of the Code. The learned Judicial Magistrate after perusing the complaint petition and the statement of the complainant on S.A. and the statements of the witnesses examined by him under section 202 of the Code, found a prima facie case under the aforesaid sections of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issuance of summons against the accused persons.

(3.) THE complaint petition shows that the offences were made out on the allegation made therein. The impugned order shows that the learned Magistrate after considering the complaint petition, the statement of the complainant on S.A. and the statements of the witnesses examined by the complainant found a, prima facie, case against the petitioner and passed the impugned order. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order. As regards the plea of the petitioner that the complainant had received the pumping set, the same would be considered at the time of trial. The plea cannot be considered at this stage. So, there is no sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order. This application is, thus, dismissed.