A Court can file a complaint against a person who is not a party to the proceeding if he is alleged to have committed an offence along with the parties to the proceeding in the course of the same transaction.

1. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Monghyr Sadar. The case was numbered as 563-C of 1961. Opposite Party-Rani Bahadur Singh, Indu Bhushan Singh and Vikramaditya Singh were named as accused in that case. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate took cognizance and transferred the case to Mr. Ramdeo Singh, Judicial Magistrate, for trial. The accused persons surrendered on the 8th June 1962, and were ordered to be released on bail of Rs. 500.00 with two sureties of like amount each. The accused persons furnished bail bonds, and were released on bail on the same day.

2. The petitioner obtained certified copies of two of the bail bonds of the 21st September 1962. They showed that one of the sureties was Jamuna Singh who had also put his signature on them. On the 27th October 1962. the petitioner filed an application, alleging that the bail bonds had been, forged because Jamuna Singh had died about ten years earlier, and praying for action against opposite party Ram Bahadur Singh and Indu Bhushan Singh. He filed a similar petition on the 14th November 1962. On the 26th November, 1962, he obtained copies of the same bail bonds, and found that, in the mean time, the signatures and at places, the names of Jamuna Singh had been cancelled, and those of Shashi Bhushan Singh, son of Jamuna Singh, had been introduced. On the 28th November, 1962, he filed two petitions before the learned Magistrate. In one petition, he prayed that the three bail bonds executed by Ram Bahadur Singh, Indu Bhushan Singh and Vikramaditya Singh should be kept in safe custody as they were forged, and some cuttings appeared on them. In the other petition, his prayer was for suitable action being taken, and complaint, as required by law, being filed against the accused opposite party. The learned Magistrate acceded to both prayers, and called upon the accused opposite party to show cause why action according to law, should not be taken against them. On the 1st December 1962, the learned Magistrate issued notice on the petitioners application to opposite party Kartik Singh also to show cause why action should not be taken against him. It may be stated that he is a son of Jamuna Singh, and he signed as one of the sureties, Jamuna Singh being the other, on two of the bonds, i.e., the bonds executed by Indu Bhushan Singh and Ram Bahadur Singh.

3. The learned Magistrate, by his order dated the 5th April, 1963 decided to file a complaint against opposite party Earn Bahadur, Indu Bhushan and Bikramaditya under Ss. 465 and 471 and against Kartik Singh under Ss. 465/109 and 471/109 of the Penal Code. A complaint was, accordingly, filed. All members of the opposite party filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge of Monghyr who, by his order dated the 11th March 1964, has allowed the appeal, and has ordered the complaint filed by the Magistrate against the opposite party to be withdrawn. It is against this order that the petitioner has filed this application for revision.

4. The learned Sessions Judge has given several grounds in support of his decision. His first point is that, although a preliminary inquiry is not necessary under S. 476 of the Criminal P.C., the learned Magistrate ought to have held a preliminary inquiry in this case. It seems to me, however that there is no reason why the learned Magistrate must have held an inquiry in this case. He heard the parties and, on the materials before him, he came to the conclusion that this was a fit case in which a complaint should be filed. Whether or not it was necessary for him to hold a preliminary inquiry was a matter of his discretion, and I am unable to say in this case why he should be held to have exercised his discretion wrongly.

5. Another ground is that, due to the laches of the petitioner, the opposite party were unable to get copies of the bail bonds, and hence they were not in a position to show cause against the contemplated filing of a complaint against them. This is incorr