Dismissed

Brijhan Pandit and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar Through The Home Secretary

Patna HC1 Dec 2014CR. WJC/904/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings instituted under Sections 419, 420, 467, and 468 of the Penal Code. The Court held that the allegations in the FIR constituted a cognizable offence involving impersonation, distinguishable from previous precedents relied on by the petitioner. The Court also rejected the plea of undue delay.

What did the court decide?

The petition for quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 419, 420, 467, and 468 of the Penal Code is dismissed.

Brijhan Pandit and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar Through The… — Quashing and FIR | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.904 of 2013 (4) dt.01-12-2014

¶2

1/4

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.904 of 2013

¶4

====================================================== 1. Brijhan Pandit Son Of Jang Pandit Resident Of Vill- Indarwa Abdullah, P.S- Andsitt- Gopalganj

¶5

Dina Nath Sharma Son Of Late Mohar Sharma Resident Of VillMahuawa, P.S- Kuchaikot, Distt- Gopalganj 3. Mina Nath Sharma Son Of Late Mohar Sharma Resident Of VillMahuawa, P.S- Kuchaikot, Distt- Gopalganj

¶6

Ashilam Son Noor Mian Resident Of Vill- Mahuawa, P.S- Kuchaikot, Distt- Gopalganj .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar .... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Yogendra Prasad Sinha, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Manoj Kr. Ambastha, ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD ORAL ORDER

¶7

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶8

4 01-12-2014

¶9

the State.

¶10

This is a petition for quashing the criminal proceeding of G.R. No. 1572 of 1993 arising out of Gopalganj P.S. Case No. 281 of 1993 and Trial No. 486 of 2013 instituted under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468 of the Penal Code.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for relief on two grounds. It has been stated that though offence, as alleged, is not made out as the matter concerned with the civil litigation. It has, further, been contended that the occurrence is of the year 1993 and twenty three years have already elapsed, hence, in view of Article 21 of the Constitution constitutes right of speedy trial, the case is required to be quashed and has placed reliance on decision reported in 1992(2) P.L.J.R., 711 (Krishna Chandra Gupta& Ors. Vrs. The State of Bihar), 2008(3) P.L.J.R., 608 (Navin Chandra Sinha Vrs. State of Bihar & Anr.) and 2008(3) P.L.J.R., 633 (Suresh Prasad & Ors. Vrs.

¶12

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.904 of 2013 (4) dt.01-12-2014

¶13

2/4

¶14

State of Bihar) .

¶15

The learned counsel for the State, however, contends that the allegation made in the first information report, itself, makes out an offence and mere because of civil remedy there is no ground to quash if the allegation made, makes out an offence. It has, further, been contended that the delay in disposal of the case is at the hand of the petitioner and it has, further, been stated that the case is at the fag end of the trial and only pending for judgment as the evidence of the prosecution has already been closed and the statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code has already been recorded on 15.03.2008, itself, and the case is pending for final argument since 09.11.2010 and the accused persons themselves responsible for the delay in disposal of the case and also the petitioners have moved this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 12185 of 2011, which was dismissed on 02.11.2012.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits Cr. Misc. No. 12185 of 2011 was filed with regard to appointment of hand writing expert and the report of the hand writing expert and it was not concerned with the quashing the order, again, taking cognizance or quashing the criminal prosecution.

¶17

However, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the delay is at the instance of the petitioners. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are not responsible for delay.

¶18

Having regard to the allegation that on 14.12.1992 two sale deeds executed in the name of the complainant and there is allegation that in place of complainant

¶19

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.904 of 2013 (4) dt.01-12-2014

¶20

3/4

¶21

some other persons were impersonated and taking his signature the sale deed was executed in the name of accused no. 5 after taking consideration of rupees nine thousand and the registry was made. The allegation makes out a cognizable offence, hence, once an offence is made out, then, if there is civil remedy, then, the criminal prosecution does not appear to be correct. However, the decisions reported in 2008(3) P.L.J.R., 608 and 2008(3) P.L.J.R., 633 (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in view of the fact that the allegation in those cases were that the appellant was the person who had forcibly taken signature of complainant on the badlanama and it was due to fear he signed badlanama and fact remained in the case reported in 2008(3) P.L.J.R., 633 (supra) was that two sale deeds were executed for the same land by two different vendors. However, the case is not like that the case relies upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, but, the allegation, itself, is that the sale deed was executed by impersonation and it comes under the definition of false document and under Section 464 of the Penal Code, hence, the ground that the allegation made in the first information report does not make out an offence does not subsists.

¶22

The second point raised that twenty three years have already elapsed and the case is pending.

¶23

The counter affidavit filed by the State in which it has been stated that the delay is on the part of the petitioners and they were instrumental and in putting litigation before the High Court and that was cause of delay. More over, be that it may having regard to the facts that the evidence of the prosecution has already been closed in 2008 as has been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the State and the statement of the petitioners

¶24

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.904 of 2013 (4) dt.01-12-2014

¶25

4/4

¶26

having been recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code in 2008, itself, and the case is pending for final argument and this fact has been stated in the counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no. 2 and the fact has not been controverted, hence, I do not find any merit to interfere in the impugned order. There is no merit in the petition, hence, it is dismissed .

¶27

(Gopal Prasad, J)

¶28

SA/U U T T

Brijhan Pandit and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar Through The Home Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijhan Pandit and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar Through The Home Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kedarnath Ram Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Ishwar Sao Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Mukesh Sah Vs The State Of Bihar

Sushil Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Puttu Kumar Laheri Vs The State Of Bihar

Nirmal Tiwari Vs The State Of Bihar