ORDER This application is directed against the order dated 5.7.2013 passed in Complaint Case No. 1148 of 2012 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner. 2. Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the case of the complainant needs to be taken notice of. 3. It is the case of the complainant that Rev. Joseph Minz (accused No.1) was appointed as Bishop of Simdega Catholic Diacesan in the year 1993 who continued to hold the said post tm 10.4.2008. Being Bishop of Simdega, he was also acting as Ex.-Officio President of Simdega Catholic Diacesan Education Society. While Rev. Joseph Minz was holding the said post, he called the complainant to his office and conveyed to him that under a Project of the Society, several buildings for schools, hostels, residences and a community hall are to be constructed for total estimated cost of Rs.321 crores and 45 lacs. The said money provided by the foreign country has been received at Reserve Bank of India. Further it was told that for getting the said money released, 1% of the said amount is to be deposited with the Reserve Bank of India but such a huge amount is not with the Society and if the said money is arranged by him, it would be repaid with interest at the market rate and that he would be given preference in awarding contract for construction of the aforesaid buildings. The complainant agreed for that. The complainant in between 2007-09 paid a sum of Rs.65 lacs to the accused No. 1 on being convinced by letter of authority given by the members of the governing body including the petitioner, authorizing the said Rev. Joseph Minz to receive money on behalf of the Society. Subsequently, when the complainant did find that nothing is happening in the matter, he made request to the accused No. 1 and also the members of the governing body to pay back him money. After much persuasion, a sum of Rs.9.50 lacs was paid to the complainant in the month of December, 2008 and the accused persons promised to make payment of rest of the money. After much persuasion, a sum of Rs.9.50 lacs was paid to the complainant in the month of December, 2008 and the accused persons promised to make payment of rest of the money. Thereafter later on, when the complainant did approach the accused persons for return of the money, he was shown another project report showing construction of the building for the estimated cost of Rs.40 crores. When nothing was done in this regard, the complainant became quite suspicious and then made enquiry and during enquiry, he came to know that all the accused persons, who were members of the governing body of Simdega Catholic Diacesan Education Society including the petitioner in connivance with each other had prepared a false Project report, letter of authority in order to cheat the persons and in this manner, it has been alleged that the complainant was put to loss of Rs.55.5 lacs. 4. On the said allegation, a complaint was lodged which was registered as Complaint Case No. 1148 of 2012 in which cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the accused person including the petitioner, vide order dated 5.7.2013 which is under challenge. 5. Mr. Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Bishop of Simdega on 5.2.2008 under the authority of his Holiness the Pope Benedict-XVI in place of Rev. Joseph Minz (accused No. 1). Having been appointed, the petitioner took charge as Bishop of Simdega Diocese on 11.4.2008 and since then, he in the capacity of Bishop of Simdega was also acting as Ex. Officio President of Simdega Catholic Diacesan Education Society. Before that Rev. Joseph Minz (accused No.1) was holding the said post and it is the specific case of the complainant that in the year 2007, it was the accused No. 1, who called the complainant to his office and told about the Project and also about the money being received in the Reserve Bank of India. It was he, who asked the complainant to pay 1% of the amount which has been received in the Reserve Bank of India for getting the said amount released. It was he, who asked the complainant to pay 1% of the amount which has been received in the Reserve Bank of India for getting the said amount released. Believing his version, the complainant deposited the amount with the accused No. 1 which, according to the case of the complainant, was not paid in entirety, still the petitioner has been made accused, who had taken over the charge of the office of the Society on 11.4.2008 and had never made any misrepresentation. 6. Further it was submitted that the reason for false implication is that when the petitioner took over the charge of the office of President of the Society, the petitioner, authorized Rev. Joseph Minz (accused No. 1) to operate the account of the Society but he exceeded his jurisdiction and hatched conspiracy with several other accused persons including the complainant and entered into certain transaction whereby, they received money for their personal use. As soon as the petitioner came to know about the said fact, a case was lodged as Complaint Case No. 1917 of 2011 against the said accused No. 1 as well the complainant in which cognizance has already been taken. For that reason this complainant case has been lodged and as such, it can be easily said that it is actuated with malice and has been lodged with oblique purpose and in that event, the order taking cognizance is certainly fit to be quashed. 7. As against this, Mr. B.M. Tripathy, learned senior counsel' appearing for the opposite party No. 2 submits that the facts which have been stated never appears to be complete and if the complete fact is put forth before this Court, the Court can easily come to the conclusion that the real culprit is the petitioner and the accused No. 1 has been used as a tool by the petitioner and other accused persons. 8. In this regard it was submitted that the witness during enquiry has stated that the money was given to this petitioner in presence of accused No. 1 and one of the witnesses has even stated that not only Rev. Joseph Minz but also this petitioner had made demand from the complainant. 9. 8. In this regard it was submitted that the witness during enquiry has stated that the money was given to this petitioner in presence of accused No. 1 and one of the witnesses has even stated that not only Rev. Joseph Minz but also this petitioner had made demand from the complainant. 9. Furthermore, act of conspiracy would be evident from the fact that this petitioner by virtue of holding the post of Bishop had authorized accused No. 1 not only to operate Bank account of the Society but also to take necessary steps to execute the Project of the Society. 10. Under the circumstances, the plea taken on behalf of the petitioner that this petitioner had nothing to do in the matter either asking the complainant to payor money was paid to accused No.1 seems, to be wholly incorrect rather the witnesses have said that the money was paid to this petitioner in presence of accused No. 1 and therefore, under the circumstances, the Court never committed any illegality in taking cognizance of the offence. 11. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, it does appear that though in the complaint, the complainant has not come with the specific statement as to whether the money was also paid to this petitioner but the witnesses during enquiry seem to have stated that money was paid to this petitioner in presence of the accused No. 1 and one of the witness has gone to say that the petitioner was the person who had also asked the complainant to pay the money and that it is the specific case of the complainant that wrong project had been prepared on the basis of which money was taken from the complainant on misrepresentation of the fact that the money for constructing of the Project has been received. 12. Under the circumstances, there appears to be all the ingredients of the offences under which cognizance of the offence has been taken and thereby the Court never seems to have committed any illegality. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. 13. However, before parting with this order, it be recorded that any finding given for the purpose of disposal of the case shall not be prejudicial to the case of the parties. Application dismissed.