At the complaint stage, the magistrate's role is to prima facie satisfy whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, without delving into a detailed discussion of the case's merits.

1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 04.07.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Patna, in Complaint Case No.38-C of 2012 by which learned Magistrate after holding enquiry has found prima facie case against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 379 Indian Penal Code.

2. Case of the Complainant, in brief, is that petitioners were closely associated with the husband of the Complainant. The husband of the Complainant died on 23.02.2011. The Complainant is Proprietor of firm M/s Raman & Sons. She used to sign blank cheques, which were given to her elder son, Atul Parashar. Second son of the Complainant Ashish Parashar had also given some signed blank cheque to him. Elder son of the Complainant had kept all those signed blank cheques with him for use as per requirement. Petitioner No.1 was having greedy eyes on her property. He was trying to be a partner in the aforesaid business, which was refused by the Complainant. Son of the Complainant, Atul Parashar, gave information in the Kotwali Police Station on 05.07.2011 regarding missing of some cheques and also filed Affidavit. He also wrote letter to the Bank on the same day to stop payment of Cheque Nos. 784605 and 784606 besides other cheques number of which he did not remember. It is alleged that petitioner no.1 in conspiracy with other accused with ulterior motive has got the file containing blank cheques disappeared from the office and misused those cheques and filed a claim of rupees thirty lac against the Complainant and her son after sending legal notice to them. Petitioner no.2 also on the instigation of petitioner no.1 put claim of rupees fifty lac against the Complainant. The Complainant had never taken any money from both accused persons. She had never given those cheques to them. Accused persons had stolen the cheques in conspiracy. Similarly, co-accused, Dadan Singh, put claim of rupees forty lac against the Complainant and her son, Atul Parashar, on the plea that he had given the aforesaid amount to the Complainant for repairing of the motor vehicle. Petitioner no.3 on instigation of petitioner no.1 put claim of rupees five lac against the son of the Complainant, Ashish Parashar, after misusing those stolen cheques, whereas, the Complainant had never taken any money from him nor given any cheque to him. It is also alleged that after death of husband of the Complainant, petitioner no.1, in April, 2011, took away all the library books of late husband of the Complainant and promised to make payment of rupees fifty thousand for those books, but he never paid the amount for which the Complainant made demand. The Complainant made demand of her cheques from the accused persons several times but they always refused. The Complainant again went to the accused persons on 29.12.2011 and demanded back her cheques then they told the Complainant either to make payment of rupees thirty lac or make the accused persons as partner in the firm and only then they will return back the cheque.

3. The Complainant alleged that the accused persons had stolen the cheque of the Complainant and misused the same after making forgery over the same and have not paid amount of rupees fifty thousand towards purchase of old library books of late husband of the Complainant.

4. The Complainant has enclosed the letter dated 05.07.2011 given in Kotwali PS along with Affidavit of losing of those cheques as Annexure-I and also information given to the Bank dated 05.07.2011 for stopping payment of those cheques as Annexure-II to the complaint. The Complainant has also enclosed the legal notice sent by the accused persons to the Complainant as Annexure-III to VI of the Complaint Petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State as well as counsel for the Opposite Party No.2.

6. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that with identical allegation and same document,