Dismissed

Sheo Lal Sharma v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC26 Apr 2017CR. MISC./44538/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal miscellaneous application seeking quashing of a summons for trial under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court held that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CPC does not apply as the alleged forgery occurred while the document was in the petitioner's custody, not in custodia legis. The application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the summons to face trial was dismissed.

Sheo Lal Sharma Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Miscellaneous No.44538 of 2013

¶3

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- SIWAN

¶4

===========================================================

¶5

Sheo Lal Sharma, Son of Late Ram Tapeshwar Sharma, Resident of VillageDarauli Mathiya, P.S.- Daruli, District- Siwan

¶6

.... .... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Bihar

¶9

Kanhaya Patel, Son of Late Darshan Patel, Village-Darauli Mathiya, P.S.Darauli, District- Siwan

¶10

.... .... Opposite Parties

¶11

===========================================================

¶12

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Asho Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party no2. : Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, APP

¶13

===========================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT

¶15

Date: 26-04-2017

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

¶17

counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

¶18

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 23.08.2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan in Darauli P.S. Case No. 26 of 2013 whereby the petitioner has been summoned to face trial after finding a prima facie case to be made out under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the police report submitted under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶19

It is alleged in the first information report which was instituted on the basis of a complaint which was referred to the

¶20

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.44538 of 2013 dt.26-04-2017

¶21

2 / 3

¶22

police for investigation in exercise of powers conferred under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the petitioner had fabricated a forged parcha alleged to be issued by Distirct Bhudan Yogya Committee, Siwan in respect of land of the informant and started laying claim of such land on the basis of such forged paper. However, the Secretary, Bhudan Yogya Committee, Siwan gave report that no such parcha has been issued from his office.

¶23

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the express provision prescribed under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan could not have taken cognizance of the offence under Sections420, 467, 468, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner on the basis of a private complaint.

¶24

The learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submitted that in the present matter, there is no application to the provisions prescribed under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He contended that the alleged forgery was not made by the petitioner while the document was in possession of the court rather the forgery was made by the petitioner when the document submitted before the court was in his own custody.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

¶26

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.44538 of 2013 dt.26-04-2017

¶27

3 / 3

¶28

perused the record.

¶29

The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the ratio laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh

¶30

Marwah and Another vs. Meenakshi Marwah and Another [(2005) 4 SCC 370]. In the said case, the Constitution Bench observed that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis.

¶31

Admittedly, in the present case, the allegation is not that the offence was committed with respect to a document when it was in custodia legis .

¶32

In that view of the matter, I see no merit in this application. It is dismissed, accordingly.

¶33

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)

¶34

Sanjeet/-

¶35

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	04.05.2017
Transmission Date	04.05.2017

Sheo Lal Sharma v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheo Lal Sharma v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

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

Vijay Prasad Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Anil Kumar Chaudhary Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Amit Kumar and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Himanshu Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Sayed Eftekhar Ahmad Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Ravi Bhushan Prasad Verma Vs Janardan Pd. Verma and Ors.