@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Madhavendra Saran, J.@mdashThis application has been filed for quashing the order dated 13.6.2005 passed by learned 6th Additional Sessions
Judge, Patna in Misc. Case No. 1/2004 whereby and whereunder he had directed to file complaint case against the petitioner as per requirement
of Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short as Code) in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. During the pendency of the
present application there was certain development and thereafter the petitioner filed I.A. No. 29/2007 praying therein to quash the complaint case
No. 1387(C) of 2006 as contained in Annexure-4 to the application which was lodged by Sri R.N. Sharma, learned 6th Additional Sessions
Judge against the petitioner. Shortly stated the case of O.P. No. 2, Savita Kumari, is that she was married to the petitioner Ghan Shyam Kumar on
16.12.1999. On 7.8.2001 she filed complaint case No. 1449(C)/2001 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna for offence punishable u/s
498A of the Penal Code. After enquiry cognizance was taken and processes were issued against Ghan Shyam Kumar, his father Shivjee Prasad
and mother Shakuntala Devi. The accused surrendered in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna for bail but their prayer was
rejected and thereafter they filed B.P. Nos. 2959/2002 and 4919/2002 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Patna. Both the bail petitions were
transferred to the Court of 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna for disposal. In both bail petitions certified copy of informatory petition dated
10.4.2001 allegedly filed by Ghan Shyam Kumar in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, East, Muzaffarpur was filed. The O.P. No. 2
on suspicion that such informatory petition was forged and fabricated one filed a petition u/s 340 of the Code in the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Patna which was registered as complaint case No. 581C/2003. The said petition was transferred to Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna for enquiry and disposal. Learned Magistrate conducted enquiry and by order dated 16.7.2004 dismissed the said
case on the ground that the said forged and fabricated petition had not been filed in his court rather the same was filed in the Court of 6th
Additional Sessions Judge, Patna and hence he is not competent to file that case. Thereafter O.P. No. 2 filed Misc. Case No. 1/2004 u/s 340 of
the Code on 28.8.04 in the Court of 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna for filing complaint case against the petitioner for misleading the court by
annexing a forged document in B.P. Nos. 2959/2002 and 4919/02. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. In reply to show cause the
petitioner stated that a similar case on similar allegation has been rejected by Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna and
the said informatory petition was genuine and not forged one. Learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna thereafter conducted enquiry and by
order dated 13.6.05 found a prima facie case against petitioner u/ss. 192 and 193 of the Penal Code and accordingly, filed complaint case
mentioned above against the petitioner, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna.
2. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna failed to consider that the copy of court fee
register and the filing register makes it clear that informatory petition was filed in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, East, Muzaffarpur by the
petitioner and the Copying Department had issued certified copy of that informatory petition on payment of proper court fee on the basis of
requisition filed on behalf of the petitioner for obtaining the certified copy. The said certified copy of informatory petition so issued by the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, East, Muzaffarpur was filed on behalf of the petitioner alongwith bail petition. It was further argued that learned Additional
Sessions Judge also failed to notice that O.P. No. 2 had filed a complaint case in this regard earlier in the Court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Patna. The said petition was numbered as complaint case No. 581C/2003. Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Patna vide his order dated 16.7.2004 dismissed the complaint case in exercise of his power u/s 203 of the Code. O.P. No. 2 being the
complainant did not challenge the said rejection before any higher court and thus, the order dated 16.7.2004 attained finality.
3. On the other hand it was contended on behalf of O.P. No. 2 that after enquiry learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded a definite opinion
that informatory petition is forged and has been used in the bail petition to take benefit. The disputed question of fact is not a ground for quashing
the present criminal case. It was further contended that defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
4. Thus, main allegation is that the petitioner had procured a forged and fabricated certified copy of informatory petition dated 10.4.2001
purported to have been filed before Sub-Divisional Magistrate, East, Muzaffarpur on 10.4.2001 and said certified copy was filed in the
abovementioned two bail petitions to obtain bail. The OP. No. 2 doubted the genuineness of the said informatory petition and so she filed
complaint case before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna bearing complaint case No. 581C/2003. From Annexure-3 to the application it appears
that In-charge Dy. Collector, District Judicial Record Room, Muzaffarpur vide his letter No. 91 dated 10.10.2003 informed Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, East, Muzaffarpur that on receipt of his letter No. 4214 dated 9.10.03 an enquiry was made and it was found that in the court fee
register dated 10.4.2001 of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, East, Muzaffarpur at serial No. 4793 the name of Ghan Shyam Kumar had been
mentioned. It appears from Annexure-4 that Sub-Divisional Magistrate, East, Muzaffarpur vide his letter No. 4475 dated 24.10.03 informed Shri
Manoj Kumar Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna that on 10.4.2001 an informatory petition was filed by Ghan Shyam Kumar. Then it
appears from Annexure-6 to the application that Sub-Divisional Magistrate, East, Muzaffarpur vide his letter No. 875 dated 29.1.2004 informed
Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna that informatory petition filed by Ghan Shyam Kumar has been entered at serial
No. 4793 in the court fee register. He also informed that after expiry of statutory period the said informatory petition had been destroyed. Then
Annexure-7 is xerox-copy of court fee register of the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, East, Muzaffarpur sent by S.D.M. concerned to the Shri
Manoj Kumar Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna for information. A bare perusal of the aforesaid letters, court fee register and other
papers makes it clear that informatory petition was filed in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, East, Muzaffarpur by the petitioner and the
Copying Department had issued certified copy of that informatory petition to the petitioner on payment of proper court fee. It appears that learned
Additional Sessions Judge did not consider the abovementioned papers and based his conclusion on Annexures-9 and 10 in which it was
mentioned that there was a list available of 251 persons who had filed informatory petitions in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, East,
Muzaffarpur but in the office of Judicial Record Room of Muzaffarpur the said list contained 252 persons and at serial 252 the name of Ghan
Shyam Kumar was mentioned and considering the discrepancies in the two lists Sub-Divisional Magistrate, East, Muzaffarpur in his letter dated
25.5.2004 informed that that there has been some sort of manipulation and bungling in entertaining and making entry of the name of Ghan Shyam
Kumar at serial No. 252. The learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna concluded that till 30.4.2001 251 persons had only filed informatory
petitions and so how the name of Ghan Shyam Kumar figured at serial No. 252 and therefore, it creates doubt that how at the bottom of the list
the name of Ghan Shyam Kumar was entered in the register.
5. A person cannot be prosecuted on mere suspicion.. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, East, Muzaffarpur as well as Dy. Collector, In-charge Record
Room, Muzaffarpur had submitted report in writing before Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna that the informatory
petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, East, Muzaffarpur. Certified copy of the same was issued on
payment of proper court fee. They had also informed that name of Ghan Shyam Kumar was found mentioned at serial No. 4793 of court fee
register dated 10.4.2001. In face of the aforesaid communications it cannot be accepted that a forged certified copy of informatory petition was
obtained by the petitioner Ghan Shyam Kumar from record room of Muzaffarpur. It is true that at the stage of taking cognizance the only thing
which has to be considered whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding further against accused. Sufficient grounds do not mean sufficient
grounds for conviction but such ground must be sufficient to put the accused upon trial. The finding recorded by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge,
Patna in the impugned order dated 13.6.2005 is not sustainable in law. This application is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned order dated
13.6.2005 passed in Misc. Case No. 1/2004 is hereby quashed and, accordingly, complaint case No. 1387(C)/2006 lodged on the basis of
above impugned order also stands quashed.