The Chief Judicial Magistrate has the authority to transfer a case for inquiry or trial to a competent Magistrate subordinate to him without taking cognizance of the offense, and the initiation of criminal proceedings before a Magistrate is not without jurisdiction if the acts and omissions constituting the offense were committed within the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction.

M.Y.Eqbal, J.

1. In the instant application, filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire prosecution and the order dated 26th May, 1994 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Patna taking cognizance of the offences under Secs. 420, 406, 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code in complaint Case No. 954 (Q/1993.

2. The facts of the case lies in a very narrow compass:

The complainant O.P. No. 2 filed a complaint alleging inter alia that he along with other persons, went to village Saguna Nayatola in search of land, sometime in the month of February/March, 1992 where he came in contact with the accused persons, Including the petitioner, the petitioner was eager to dispose of his land of plot No. 1981 and 1893 under Khata No. 306 and the complainant finally entered into an agreement with the accused persons by executing a deed of agreement to sale on 27.10.1992. Pursuant to the said agreement, a sum of Rs. 10, 000 was also given to them as advance money by cheque No. 159632, dated 26.10.1992 and subsequently a sum of Rs. 90, 000.00 was also given to them by three cheques drawn from the Central Bank of India in favour of respective accused persons, including the petitioners. It was alleged that the cheques were encashed by the accused petitioners receiving a total sum of Rs. 1 lac as advance money to be adjusted towards consideration money when final transfer deed was to be executed and registered within the stipulated time. In the mean time, the complainant learnt that the accused persons, including petitioners were owner of only 1 bigha 2 katha of land of plot nos. 1991 and 1893. the complainant claimed to has orally agreed with the accused persons that he would sell 1 bigha 2 katha in favour of Sahkari represented by the complainant as its Secretary. On the basis of alleged settlement as claimed by the complainant, it was alleged that the accused persons kept the complainant hanging for long time and ultimately the complainant learnt that, the accused persons were not intending to sell the land and his intention was to grab money of the complainant under the deceptive grab of such false document. The complainant further alleged that he approached the accused persons and sent legal notice but the accused persons adopted adhesive attitude and they dishonestly and fraudulently took the money from the complainant to make delivery of the amount paid which they received as a result of such inducement with no intention to enter into any transaction and thereby committed offence under Secs. 465, 468, 420 and 471, IPC

3. It is stated inter alia in the application that after the complaint was filed, the Chief Judicial Magistrate did not take cognizance of the offence mentioned in the complaint petition by examining the complainant on solemn affirmation rather made over the file to the Judicial Magistrate under Section 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) for enquiry and trial. The Learned Magistrate before whom the complaint was sent, after examining the complainant and after making necessary enquiry, took cognizance on 8th December 1993 against the petitioner and other accused persons under the aforesaid sections of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner stated that he came to know of the proceeding only in the last week of September 1995 when steps towards execution of non-bailable warrant of arrest was taken against him.

4. Mr. Madhup, Learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner assailed the order of the Learned Magistrate taking cognizance and also the prosecution on various grounds. The Learned Counsel firstly submitted that the very initial order dated 26.11.1993 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, transferring the file under Sec. 192 of the Code without taking cognizance is bad in law and is wholly without jurisdiction. The Learned Counsel submitted that the Chief Judicial Magistrate befor