IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.9520 of 2009
SATYENDRA PRASAD SHARMA @ SATYENDRA
SHARMA, S/o Sri Shyam Nandan Singh, R/o Village-
Amawan, P.S.-Bikram, District- Patna
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. STATE OF BIHAR
2. Pushpa Devi, S/o Sri Raghunath Sharma, R/o Village-
Khadagpur, P.S.-Bihta, District- Patna.
...... Opposite Parties.
For the petitioner : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate.
Mr. Sunil Prasad, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Atul Chandra, Addl. P.P.
-----------
2 29-06-2010 Heard both sides.
Petitioner seeks to challenge the validity of
order dated 4.08.2007 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Ist Class, Danapur in Complaint Case No.
130/06. By the said order, learned Magistrate, on
being satisfied that there is prima facie material
against the petitioner to proceed against in the case
instituted under sections 406,420, 468,120B/34 of
the Indian Penal Code, has taken cognizance.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that there is vague and general allegation against the
petitioner that he too connived with the main accused
in committing the offence punishable under sections
406, 420, 468,120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is
stated that petitioner had re-joined the post office in
2
question in the year 2000. It is next contended that
there is inordinate delay in filing the present
prosecution.
Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, submits
that the impugned order does not require any
interference as it has been recorded therein that from
materials available on record a prima facie case is
made out. It is further pointed out that petitioner is
being prosecuted for an offence punishable under
sections 120B/34 besides other sections of the Indian
Penal Code. Conspiracy or connivance will appear in
course of trial when witnesses shall be examined
Submission of the petitioner that he has
been wrongly and/or falsely roped in this case on the
strength of general and vague allegation, shall be
considered at due stage of the trial.
Considering the scope of the jurisdiction
exercised by the learned Magistrate, this court is
satisfied that the order impugned does not require any
interference. There is no merit in this application.
It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sujit (Kishore K.Mandal,J)