Amresh Kumar MishrA. Vs. State of Bihar.

[markandey katju ; gyan sudha misra, jj.] - code of civil procedure (c.p.c.) 1908 - section 151 - saving of inherent powers of court -- this appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 21.5.2004 passed by learned single judge of the patna high court in civil revision no. 945 of 2002. while the aforesaid partition suit was pending, the defendants smt. pushpa biswas and apurva kumar biswas executed a general power of attorney on 31.7.1992 in favour of umesh chandra and dr. sanjeev kumar mishra and the same was registered. pushpa biswas and apurva kumar biswas cannot be allowed to say that their own act of signing the compromise petition was collusive and fraudulent. the high court has observed that defendants nos. 2 and 2a viz., pushpa biswas and apurva kumar biswas should have consulted the power of attorney dr. sanjeev kumar mishra before signing the compromise petition. the principal is not bound to consult his attorney before signing a compromise petition. the impugned judgment and order of the high court is set aside and the order dated 7.6.2002 of the learned subordinate judge-v, bhagalpur is restored......of 2001, t.r.no.1418 of 2002. by the said order, learned magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under sections 406,468, 420 and 120b of the indian penal code and directed for summoning the accused persons, including the petitioner.2. short fact of the case is that opp.party no.2 filed a complaint case in the court of learned chief judicial magistrate disclosing therein that he had purchased distribution, exhibition and exploitation rights of the film " aadmi khilona hai" from accused no.3, who was the proprietor of m/s ganga kaberi films, katihar for exploiting the said right for the area in question. it was alleged that subsequently, the complainant deposited the amount with accused no.3 and registration certificate was also issued in favour of the petitioner. however, at subsequent stage, it was alleged that the petitioner, who was proprietor of m/s v.m. international (film distributor) filed an objection after expiry of the period of limitation. subsequently, the complainant suffered huge loss and on that allegation complaint was filed. after conducting enquiry, the learned magistrate has taken cognizance of offences by the impugned order.3. sri pankaj kumar sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, while pressing the present petition, has argued that on perusal of the complaint petition, no offence is made out against the petitioner.4. sri ajay kumar thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opp.party no.2 has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. i have also heard smt. indu bala pandey, learned addl.public prosecutor appearing on behalf of the state.5. besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, i have perused the contents of the complaint petition and the impugned order. on perusal of the complaint petition, the court is satisfied that no offence as alleged by the complainant against the petitioner is made out. it appears that in a mechanical manner, learned magistrate has taken cognizance of offences, which requires to be interfered.....