JUDGMENT 06/ 17.03.2010 This Cr. Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 24.08.2009 by which the Complaint Case No.614 of 2008 corresponding to T.R.No.355 of 2009 filed on behalf of the complainant petitioner was dismissed by Shri K.K. Jha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih for the alleged offence under Sections 420/409/467/468/471/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The complainant's case in short was that the complainant happened to be the Vice President of the union of Home Guards in the State of Jharkhand and he had protested the accused on the issue that one Home Guard Srikant Singh Yadav though was discharged from his service in the year 2004 but he was allowed to work in the office and to grab the public money fraudulently by manipulation and playing fraud. In this regard the complainant petitioner had made a complaint to the responsible officer but of no avail. Thereafter the complainant preferred a petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, who set up an enquiry presided over by Shri Anil Kumar, Executive Magistrate, Giridih and after enquiry he submitted his report to the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih. It was further stated in the Complaint Petition that he ultimately filed a petition exercising his right under the Right to Information Act and from the answer to the questionnaire put by him, it was to his utter surprise that the said Srikant Singh Yadav was indulged in committing serious forgery and mischief with the aid of the other accused persons. He then met the Senior Officers of the Home Guard but he could gather that the other accused persons had been protecting the principal accused against all his criminal acts of cheating, forgery and misappropriation of public fund. 3. Learned Counsel pointed out that after the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation, an enquiry was held under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the witnesses were examined, who supported the case of the complainant but one Shri Anil Kumar, Executive Magistrate could not be examined in spite of the request made by the complainant though his report was called for and was brought on the record. 4. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the order impugned on the ground that though the witnesses produced and examined on behalf of the complainant in course of enquiry had supported the case of the complainant but even then the complaint was dismissed on flimsy grounds. The Executive Magistrate, who had enquired the allegation against the principal accused Srikant Singh Yadav, Home Guard could not be examined as no summons could be issued by the Court in spite of consistent request made by the petitioner and certain documents which were required to be brought on the record could not be supplied by the officer of Deputy Commissioner only on the protest that the same was communication between the two officers. 5. I have carefully gone through the order impugned passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, who has categorically dealt with the issue raised by the complainant and also took pain to call for the report from the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih. I find that the Deputy Commissioner reported that in the light of the report of the Executive Magistrate Shri Anil Kumar, the Deputy Commandant of Home Guard informed the Deputy Commissioner that Shri Prem Ranjan Yadav, Home Guard was paid allowance on the basis of the absentee report submitted by the In charge Officer and the payments were made through cheques. It was further stated in the said report that though Srikant Singh Yadav was discharged but subsequently by the order of the Jharkhand High Court dated 05.11.2007 passed in L.P.A.No.34 of 2007 arising out of W.P.(S)No.3453 of 2004 the order impugned by which Srikant Singh Yadav was discharged from his service was set aside and was reinstated in his service vide order dated 13.02.2008. A fresh enquiry was conducted on the complaint made by one Sahdeo Roy by an Enquiry Committee headed by the Additional Collector but by his report dated 08.11.2008 he reported that no irregularity could be found in the allotment and expenditure of Home Guard training for the fiscal 200708. A fresh enquiry was conducted on the complaint made by one Sahdeo Roy by an Enquiry Committee headed by the Additional Collector but by his report dated 08.11.2008 he reported that no irregularity could be found in the allotment and expenditure of Home Guard training for the fiscal 200708. I find that the learned Judicial Magistrate quoted on the basis of the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih that no irregularity was found in payment made to the Home Guard by the Committee headed by the Additional Collector, Giridih and even no illegality was found in course of enquiry and therefore, the Judicial Magistrate was of the opinion that the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused persons and hence dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner complainant failed to show any illegality, irregularity in the order impugned which occasioned miscarriage of justice so as to call for interference therein. I do not find that the order impugned had occasioned even the grave failure of justice on account of the manifest error on the point of law. Hence for the reasons, there being no merit, this Cr. Revision is dismissed.