RAKESH KUMAR, J.

1. The sole petitioner, aggrieved with the order dated 23.11.1996 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Siwan in Complaint Case No.1182 of 1996, has approached this Court while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C). By the said order, learned Magistrate, after examining the complaint petition, statement of complainant, which was recorded on S.A. and evidence of three witnesses, had taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 420, 421 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and ordered to issue process for securing attendance of the accused persons, which include the petitioner.

2. Short facts of the case is that the complainant filed the present complaint before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate with an allegation that he had sent two money orders from Calcutta to his wife, who was residing at village Jigrawan, Police Station Maharajganj, District Siwan. One money order was sent for Rs.1,000/- and second was for Rs.2,000/-. The money orders were issued in the name of Smt. Sarswati Devi, who is trie wife of complainant. It was alleged by the complainant in the complaint petition that though Rs.1,000/- of first money order was handed over to the wife of the complainant, the amount of second money order amounting to Rs. 2,000/- was mis-appropriated by the petitioner no.1, who was Post Master in the Jigrawan Post Office in connivance with two other official accused persons. It was alleged that conspiring with each other the complainant was cheated by the accused persons. It was also alleged in the complaint petition that in the village in question, several other persons were cheated in similar manner. After examining the complainant on S.A. and three witnesses in support of the complainant case, the learned Magistrate by the impugned order took cognizance for the offences under Sections 420, 421 and 120 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issuance of processes against accused persons including the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel Sri Vikas Ratan Bharti appearing on behalf of the petitioner has challenged the order of cognizance on following grounds :

I) On perusal of the complaint petition, no offence is made out

II) It was a bonafide mistake and immediately after noticing the mistake, the accused persons took steps to get the money back from one another Sarswati Devi to whom the amount of money order was handed over due to mistake of identification. Subsequently, the amount was taken back from Sarswati Devi and steps were taken to hand over the said amount to the wife of the complainant, but the postal report shows that she refused to accept money and thereafter, present complaint petition was filed.

III) The matter was enquired by the department and department also found that it was a mistake. However, the petitioner was warned by the department that if in future such mistake is committed, departmental proceeding may be initiated against him.

4. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of cognizance. He has referred to Annexures 3 to 6 of the petition to impress upon the court that bonafide steps were taken by the petitioner for handing over the said money to the real person. Annexure-3 is a typed copy of statement of one Sarswati Devi to whom payment was made. It indicates that Sarswati Devi was approached by the department for returning the money and thereafter, on 9.6.1996, the money was returned by the said Sarswati Devi to the department. Annexure-3 does not contain the date of recording of statement. Annexure- 4 is the letter issued by the Sub Post Master Legal, Siwan. Annexure-4 is the typed copy of a letter purported to be issued by Sub Post Master, Legal to the Branch Post Master, Jigrawan whereby the Branch Post Master, Jigrawan was asked to take steps to return the money to Sarswati Devi. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out the endo