Allowed

Shambhu Sharan Srivastava v. State of Bihar

Patna HC1 Jul 2013CR. MISC./37681/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the petitioner's application to quash criminal proceedings initiated by an informant alleging false details in a sale deed. The Court held that the informant lacked cause of action, and since only he was aggrieved by the discrepancy, the proceedings were declared baseless and quashed.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 05.06.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj, in connection with Gopalganj Town P.S. Case No. 16 of 2004 is quashed.

Shambhu Sharan Srivastava Vs State of Bihar — Quashing and FIR | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.37681 of 2008

¶2

====================================================== Shambhu Sharan Srivastava, son of late Mangal Prasad Srivastava, resident of village Sarai, Warthu, P.S. Town Gopalganj, Distt. Gopalganj. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Vidhan Chand Rai, son of late Jagannath Pd., resident of Hari Harpur, P.S. Badopur, at present Saraia, Ward No. 6, Distt. Gopalganj. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha, Adv. For the State : Mr. Mustaque Alam, A.P.P. For the Opposite Party No. 2: Mr. Bijay Prakash Singh. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL ORDER 21 01-07-2013 Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the

¶3

State.

¶4

The Petitioner seeks quashing of the entire proceeding including the order dated 5.6.2008 by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj, has taken cognizance in Gopalganj Town P.S. Case No. 16 of 2004.

¶5

The case of the Informant is that his family had acquired a certain piece of land upon which a Title Suit was instituted by the Petitioner’s family in which his brother was the defendant. The Title Suit ended in a decree in their favour. Later on he found out that a sale deed has been created in which the accused No. 1 is said to have purchased certain lands from accused No. 2 to 10 in which even he has been described as a

¶6

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37681 of 2008 (21) dt.01-07-2013 2/2

¶7

purchaser. Since he was not a purchaser, he filed the present case.

¶8

It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that even conceding that the sale deed contained the name of the Informant as one of the purchasers, it is the rest of the accused persons who should have been aggrieved by such description in the document. In fact, the Informant would stand to gain if the said land is shown to have been sold to him.

¶9

On the other hand, the counsel for the Informant submits that since a false document had been prepared, therefore, they should be prosecuted.

¶10

Having considered the contents in the First Information Report and the fact that no other purchaser complained about such an act, I am of the view that the allegations are baseless. Moreover, the Informant does not have any cause of action against the purported forged sale deed.

¶11

Hence, the application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order dated 5.6.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj, in connection with Gopalganj Town P.S. Case No. 16 of 2004, is hereby quashed.

¶12

(Anjana Prakash, J)

¶13

S.Ali

Shambhu Sharan Srivastava v. State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shambhu Sharan Srivastava v. State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Tiwary and Ors. Vs State of Bihar and Anr.

Prashant Kumar Vs State of Bihar

Shambhu Nath Jha Vs State of Bihar

Arun Kumar Roy Vs State of Bihar

Maxy Francis D'Costa @ F.D'Costa Vs State of Bihar and Anr.

Most.Samundri Devi and Ors. Vs State of Bihar and Anr.