JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the order dated 31.01.2018 whereby and where under, cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code and the offence punishable under Section 45 (B) of Cooperative Societies Act and also to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 151 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 719 of 2016. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the illegal secretary of Shanti Nagar Grih Nirman Sahyog Samiti Limited, Adityapur, Seraikella-Kharsawan though entrusted with the documents/files, did not hand over the same to the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Society, Seraikella circle in-spite of departmental order. It is also alleged against the petitioner that the petitioner continuously in an illegal manner was involved in transaction of land and has misappropriated the funds of the cooperative society. There is further allegation against the petitioner of intimidating the members of the society on the basis of the written report submitted by the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, for which Adityapur P.S. Case No. 151 of 2016 was registered and after investigation of the case, police found sufficient material against the petitioner for having committed offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code and Section 45 (B) of Cooperative Societies Act, 1935 and submitted charge sheet. 4. In the charge sheet, it has been averred by the police that besides the allegation made in the FIR that because of the failure of the production of the document and files of the said Shanti Nagar Grih Nirman Sahyog Samiti Limited, Adityapur, Seraikella-Kharsawan, the District Cooperative Officer suspended the petitioner and appointed Sri. Birendra Ravidas as the Secretary and Special Officer but even after that, the petitioner has not handed over the charge of the Secretary of the said cooperative society. In the investigation, it has been found that the petitioner has misappropriated the money of the cooperative society. 5. Birendra Ravidas as the Secretary and Special Officer but even after that, the petitioner has not handed over the charge of the Secretary of the said cooperative society. In the investigation, it has been found that the petitioner has misappropriated the money of the cooperative society. 5. After submission of the charge sheet, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella found prima facie case against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code and the offence punishable under Section 45 (B) of Cooperative Societies Act and took cognizance of the said offences. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the prosecution is based on mere suspicion and the dispute between the parties is purely a dispute of civil nature. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the ingredients of the offences for which the cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is not made out from the materials before the police and before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate but still charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is false. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the investigation, it has transpired that the petitioner has wrongly taken Rs. 10,000/- for NOC from Smt. Pushpa Rani in respect of plot no. 41, allotted in the name of her husband. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the affairs of the society was managed by the managing committee including chairman, president, secretary and other officer bearers and even there has been mismanagement in the affairs of the society or negligence in the performance of duties, the managing committee was never dissolved rather the undersecretary is being targeted and made a scape goat. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Elizabeth Jacob vs. District Collector, Idukki and Others, (2008) 15 SCC 166 , paragraph no. 15 of which reads as under: “15. Having held so, the Division Bench proceeded to allow the appeal on the unsupported surmises and inferences. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Elizabeth Jacob vs. District Collector, Idukki and Others, (2008) 15 SCC 166 , paragraph no. 15 of which reads as under: “15. Having held so, the Division Bench proceeded to allow the appeal on the unsupported surmises and inferences. One surmise was that it was generally known that the Revenue Authorities used to assign lands by ignoring the provisions of protective enactments and the public trust doctrine. The second surmise was that the past experience in the State showed a possibility that the land assigned in 1981 and 1984 was forest land and the Revenue Authorities colluded with the assignees in assigning the land. The third was that therefore the appellant should approach the civil court and seek a declaration that the land purchased by her was not forest land and establish her title and then obtain possession. Such a direction on surmises alone was unwarranted. A doubt or surmise is not proof of a fact. A claim that land may be forest land is not proof that it is forest land. A suspicion that there might have been collusion and fraud is not proof of collusion and fraud. At all events, who should establish fraud and collusion? Is it for the State which alleged fraud and collusion by someone in 1981 and 1984 to establish those facts? Or is it for the bona fide purchaser from the State to establish that there was no fraud or collusion in respect of the property put up by the State for sale? The onus is clearly on the State. Is it for the State which alleged fraud and collusion by someone in 1981 and 1984 to establish those facts? Or is it for the bona fide purchaser from the State to establish that there was no fraud or collusion in respect of the property put up by the State for sale? The onus is clearly on the State. We are therefore of the view that the Division Bench committed a jurisdictional error in interfering with the order of the learned Single Judge.” It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the facts of that case, which was based on surmises that it was generally known that the Revenue Authorities used to assign lands by ignoring the provisions of protective enactment and the public trust doctrine and the second surmises was that the past experience in the State showed a possibility that the land assigned in 1981 and 1984 was forest land and the Revenue Authorities colluded with the assignees in assigning the land and the third surmises was that the appellant should approach the civil court and seek a declaration that the land purchased by her was not forest land and establish her title and then obtain possession, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that such a direction on surmises alone was unwarranted. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Nivas vs. State of Haryana, (2022) SCC Online SC 1007, paragraph no. 27 of which reads as under: “27. It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Emphasis Supplied) And submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. 8. It is pertinent to mention here that in the case of Ram Nivas vs. State of Haryana (supra), the appellant challenged the judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the appeal against conviction filed by the appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 8. It is pertinent to mention here that in the case of Ram Nivas vs. State of Haryana (supra), the appellant challenged the judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the appeal against conviction filed by the appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order taking cognizance dated 31.01.2018 and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 151 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 719 of 2016 be quashed and set aside. 9. Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand opposes the prayer to quash the order dated 31.01.2018 and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 151 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 719 of 2016 and submits that the facts of the case in Ram Nivas vs. State of Haryana (Supra), where the said observation was made was entirely different from the stage at which such proposition of law is cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is next submitted by learned Addl. P.P. that similarly the facts of Elizabeth Jacob vs. District Collector, Idukki and Others (supra) is also entirely different from the facts of the case and the ratio of Elizabeth Jacob vs. District Collector, Idukki & Ors. has no applicability to the facts of the case at hand. Learned Addl. P.P. further submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of committing criminal breach of trust by making false land documents and in-spite of direction of the gazetted officer of society to forthwith hand over all the records and documents of the society as required for inspection and enquiry related to the affairs of the Shanti Nagar Grih Nirman Sahyog Samiti Limited, Adityapur, Seraikella-Kharsawan, the petitioner has not produced the same hence, all the ingredients of the offences for which cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is made out against the petitioner and others and the evidence in the record is sufficient even to bring home the said charges against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. It is therefore submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 10. Hence, it is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. It is therefore submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that strong suspicion is sufficient for taking cognizance of an offence by a Magistrate, in a case and so far as the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Nivas vs. State of Haryana (supra) is concerned, no doubt it is a settled principle of law suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a settled principle of law that at the stage of taking cognizance; the veracity of the allegation made against the petitioner is not to be arrived at and it can only by verified in a full dress trial. 11. It is a settled principle of law that the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could not embark upon the inquiry as to whether the evidence is reliable or not as that would be the function of the trial court, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of M.P. vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta and Others, (2004) 1 SCC 691 . 12. It is also a settled principle of law that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Monica Kumar and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2008) 8 SCC 781 . 13. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that though in dominion over the property of the concerned cooperative society including relevant registers and other materials, the petitioner has dishonestly misappropriated the same and there is also allegation against the petitioner of preparing false document and using the false document for cheating as well as not producing the documents sought to be produced by the gazetted officer of the cooperative department without any plausible reason. 14. 14. Under such circumstances, in view of the direct and specific allegation against the petitioner; this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to quash the order taking cognizance dated 31.01.2018 or for that matter the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Aditapur P.S. Case No. 151 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 719 of 2016. 15. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.