- (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.1.2009 passed by the learned Magistrate, 1st Class, Palamau in Complaint Case No.741 of 2008 whereby process has been issued against the petitioner in terms of Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(2.) THE complainant Akhilesh Kumar Choudhary filed a complaint before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau, Medninagar against the petitioner and Ghansheyam Lal putting allegation that petitioner was imparted with fisheries training by the District Fisheries Department, Palamau from 13.3.2006 to 22.3.2006 whereby he was to be paid Rs.1100/ - but this petitioner in connivance with others in stead of paying the said money to him and others, misappropriated it and thereby they committed offence under sections 408, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau, on receiving the complaint sent the matter on exercise of the power under section 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enquiry and disposal of the case before the leaned Judicial Magistrate, who on examining the complainant on solemn affirmation fixed the matter for enquiry during which three witnesses, namely,Raj Kishor Chaudhary, Santosh Chaudhary and Shankar Chaudhary were examined. Thereupon the court, vide its order dated 30.1.2009 did hold that there have been sufficient materials to proceed against both the accused for the offence under sections 409, 465, 466, 467 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, summons were issued calling upon them to face trial. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the complainant in his statement made on solemn affirmation has stated that he received fisheries training imparted by the District Fisheries Department but was not given Rs.1100/ - he himself has admitted in answering the court questions that he does not have any proof of receiving any training nor does have any proof of being admitted in the said training course. Similarly, witnesses have also stated that they received training still they were not paid money but they in answering the court questions were admitted that they are not aware as to whether the complainant got himself registered or not for receiving training. Other witness, namely, Santosh Chaudhary has also admitted that neither he put his signature on the attendance register nor he had filled up any form and thus, these disclosures made by the complainant and the witnesses clearly indicate that without there being any materials/proof of receiving training, they claimed Rs.1100/ - and as such, there was absolutely no material to proceed with the case still the court below found prima facie case against the petitioner which is quite illegal. Hence, the order under which process was issued is fit to be set aside.
(3.) LEARNED counsel further submitted that the complainant has filed this case at the instance of Raj Kishore Prasad as well as Santosh Chaudhary and Shankar Chaudhary, who supported the case during enquiry as Santosh Chaudhary and Shankar Chaudhary on the basis of forged certificate had put forth the claim of Rs.1100/ - but when it was detected that the certificates were forged, the certificate of training granted to them was cancelled which would be evident from Annexure 4 and as such, the complaint petition is certainly tainted with mala fide and on this ground also the impugned order is fit to be set aside.;