Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an order taking cognizance under Sections 467 and 468 IPC. Land title dispute raised by petitioner was insufficient as a specific allegation of forgery by the petitioner constituted a prima facie case.
Petition for quashing the order dated 24.4.2013 is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.38884 of 2013
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -821 Year- 2012 Thana -MUNGER COMPLAINT CASE District-
MUNGER
====================================================== Ram Bilash Yadav Son Of Late Faudi Yadav Resident Of Village Harinmar, P.S.-Bariyarpur, District Munger
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Opposite Party
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ambika Bhagat For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey(App)
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL ORDER
8 04-10-2017
Hear d l ear ned Counsel f or t he pet i t i oner and t he l ear ned Counsel f or t he St at e .
The pet i t i oner seeks quashi ng of t he or der dat ed 24.4.2013 passed by t he Judi ci al Magi st r at e , l st Cl ass , Munger i n Compl ai nt Case No . 821( C ) of 2012 t aki ng cogni zance under Sect i ons 467 and 468 of t he I PC .
Lear ned Counsel f or t he pet i t i oner submi t s t hat t he l and was pur chased i n t he year 1978 by t he pet i t i oner and al r eady a Ti t l e Sui t i s al so pendi ng r el at i ng t o t he same l and i n bet ween t he par t i es . Ther ef or e , t he cr i mi nal pr osecut i on shoul d not be al l owed t o pr oceed .
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38884 of 2013 (8) dt.04-10-2017
2
Cont r ar y t o t hat , l ear ned Counsel appear i ng on behal f of t he St at e submi t s t hat t her e i s speci f i c al l egat i on t hat f or ged sal e deed has been br ought i nt o exi st ence .
Havi ng consi der ed t he submi ssi ons of t he par t i es and per usal of t he r ecor d , t he Cour t f i nds t hat t he al l egat i on i s t hat f or ged sal e deed was br ought i nt o exi st ence by t he pet i t i oner . I t i s al l eged t hat Sal e Deed No . 6050, a cer t i f i ed copy of whi ch was obt ai ned by t he compl ai nant f r om t he Regi st r y Of f i ce , was of t he year 1978. The sal e deed st ands i n t he name of Bi nod Kumar execut ed by one Raj endr a Kumar Si nha . So i t i s not a case t hat no pr i ma f aci e case i s made out agai nst t he pet i t i oner .
So t hi s appl i cat i on st ands di smi ssed .
(Arun Kumar, J.)
Snkumar/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petition for quashing criminal proceedings under Sections 467 and 468 IPC is maintainable when a prima facie case of forgery is alleged.
Whether the existence of a pending title suit regarding the land in question is a valid ground to quash the criminal proceedings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State Of Bihar
Mahendra Das
Arun Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
