Ravi Nath Verma,J. - (1.) Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code"), the petitioners have questioned the legality of the order dated 26.07.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. case no. - 679 of 2002 whereby and where under the petition filed by the petitioners for their discharge under Section 245 of the Code has been rejected.
(2.) The facts of the case, which is relevant for the proper adjudication of the issue involved in this revision application, in short, is that at the instance of the opposite party no. 2 Pramod Kumar @ Mantu Saw, the aforesaid complaint case was filed with the allegation that the opposite party no. 2 has been running cable operator network business under the name and style of "Shiv Shakti Dish Antina" having its control room-cum-Office at his residence under valid licence as per regulation/ordinance and the complainant had given the cable network to different subscribers/customers at their residences and had also appointed sub-cable operators in different areas of Dhanbad Township from whom complainant had been realising fixed monthly subscription. The accused persons were also appointed in different capacities like sub-cable operator or advertising agent to collect News advertisement. On 09.05.2002, the accused persons came with one A.S.I. of Dhansar Police Station with a notice of proceeding under Section 144 of the Code initiated against the complainant-opposite party no. 2 by the S.D.M., Dhanbad in M.P. Case No. 546 of 2002 and locked the control room of the complainant's network supply but when the complainant on the next day enquired into matter from the office of S.D.M., Dhanbad Court then found that accused by forging his signature anyhow created an agreement of sale dated 07.09.2001 in which it was stated that the accused persons had given him Rupees Four Lakhs on 07.04.2001 and also agreed to pay by instalment and further by forging signature of the complainant on revenue stamp paper paid huge amount to the complainant and the accused persons had also forged his signature on each page of the agreement of sale and this way, the accused persons had committed an offence of forgery by creating transfer instruments and valuable securities/promissory notes with a view to cheat the complainant. It is also stated in the complaint petition that thereafter the complainant moved before the S.D.M., Dhanbad but as no proceeding was initiated at the instance of S.D.M., Dhanbad and no order was ever passed, the said court refused to pass any order for unlocking the control room. Thereafter, he filed a criminal revision bearing no. 89 of 2002, which was allowed and on the direction given by the S.P. Dhanbad, his control room and offices were opened.
(3.) It appears from the record that the court below after examining the complainant on S.A. and other witnesses found prima facie case and took cognizance of the offence under Sections 193, 465, 467, 468, 469 and 120(B) I.P.C. and directed to issue summons for appearance of the petitioners. After their appearance, the case was fixed for evidence before charge and the complainant examined two witnesses. The petitioners filed a petition for their discharge but the court below finding sufficient materials rejected the same by the order impugned. Hence, this revision.;