ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. – 1. In this application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 23-1-98 passed by the judicial Magistrate, Birpur, Supaul, in G.R. case No. 329/90 by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to issue summons against the accused persons including the petitioners. 2. It appears that in October, 1988 the opposite party No.2 filed a complaint petition in the court of Sub-divisional judicial Magistrate, Birpur at Supaul which was registered as complaint case No. 405, (C) of 1988. The Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate passed order on 17.7.90 forwarded the complaint petition to the Officer Incharge Birpur Police Station for institution and investigation of the case under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, On the basis of the said complaint petition Birpur P.S. Case No. 58/90 was registered on 1.8.90. The prosecution case in short as made out in the complaint petition is that the complainant claims himself to be the legally elected Secretary of Chandra Mishra Primary cum Middle School. Lalganj, Tilaini On 16.8.1988 there was a meeting of the accused persons at the house of petitioner No.6 and they hatched a conspiracy for encashing the bank - draft brought by the petitioners 1 and 2. Further case of the prosecution is that the accused persons on 18.8.98 got an legal order issued from the Chairman of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board and got the bank draft issued from the secretary of Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board for a sum of Rs. 1,22,695/- and got the same encashed from the Branch of Central Bank at Birpur with the connivance of the Branch Manager and cashier of the bank. It is alleged that again a meeting was held on 20-8-1988 at the residence of petitioner No.6 and a decision was taken to manipulate the records so that they could not be caught. The complainant was apprehending said act of the petitioner and accordingly, he informed Chairman and the Secretary of Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board as well as the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Birpur. The Police during investigation recorded the statements of witnesses and submitted the report. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners assailed the impugned order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate as being illegal and without jurisdiction. The Police during investigation recorded the statements of witnesses and submitted the report. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners assailed the impugned order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate as being illegal and without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel submitted that in fact the dispute between the parties is as to whether the claim of the petitioner that he is selected Secretary of the Board is valid or not. 5. According to the learned Counsel petitioners, No.1 to 5 are teachers of the school and Shri Mahendra Prasad and Shri Anaadi Jha were the President and Secretary respectively of the managing committee of the school which is evident from the report submitted by the District Education Officer, Saharsa who made inspection of the school and submitted his report. The learned Counsel further submitted that the dispute was also the subject matter for adjudication before the appropriate authority and the action of the complainant was deprecated. 6. Admittedly, on the basis of the complaint petition a police case was registered and the matter was investigated by the police and statements of several persons have been recorded. The learned Magistrate found that the allegations made in the complaint petition have been supported by the witnesses whose statements were recorded during the investigation. The learned Magistrate therefore on the basis of the allegations and the evidence of the witnesses, recorded during investigation, came to the conclusion that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. The learned Magistrate, therefore, took cognizance of the offence under the aforementioned sections of the Indian Penal Code. At this stage, therefore, in my opinion, this court should not interfere with the said order. After going into details about the genuineness and reliability of the case of the informant, the order passed by the learned Magistrate cannot be said as a mechanical order without application of mind. As noticed above, the learned Magistrate has perused the case diary and the statements of the witnesses recorded therein and therefore, after applying his mind he has passed the said order. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is correct and the same cannot be set aside. It will be open to the petitioners to raise all the points before the trial Court that no case is made out against them. 7. This application is, therefore, dismissed. Application Dismissed