Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1182 (PAT)

Ramashish Sharma v. State Of Bihar

2010-05-07

RAKESH KUMAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 8.9.1999 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in Bodh Gaya P. S. Case No.103 of 1997. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sec.467, 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that on the basis of the written report of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Gaya, an F. I. R. vide Bodh Gaya P. S. Case No.103 of 1997 was registered against the petitioner, who was Panchayat Sewak. The case is relating to making interpolation in the service record as well as other documents by the petitioner. The District Magistrate, Gaya got the same inquired, which was confirmed during the enquiry from the Bihar School Examination Board that fraud was committed by the petitioner and he had fraudulently changed his date of birth in the record. Accordingly, the said F. I. R. was registered. After registering the F. I. R. , the police investigated the same and after collecting sufficient materials chargesheet was submitted by the police. On submission of chargesheet , the learned Magistrate examined the record and thereafter by the impugned order has taken cognizance of the offences, as mentioned above. On examination of the materials available on the record as well as the impugned order of cognizance, I do not find any defect in the order of cognizance. 3. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present petition and the petition stands rejected. 4. In view of rejection of the present petition, the interim order of stay dated 29.2.2000 stands automatically vacated. 5. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. 6. In this case, while admitting the case and granting stay, this Court had called for lower court record, which is lying with the record of the present case. In view of rejection of the present petition, the office is directed to remit back the lower court record along with the copy of this order to the court below forthwith.