Dismissed¶7

Alok Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC27 Jan 2026CR. MISC./67702/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67702 of 2019, decided 27-01-2026 by Sandeep Kumar, J; quashing of cognizance under Ss. 420 & 34 IPC refused; Udwantnagar P.S. Case No. 403/2016; G.R. No. 5522 of 2016; Cr. Rev No. 122 of 2018; Complaint Case No. 1729(C)/2016; Partition Suit Nos. 194/2018 and 54/2010; Miscellaneous Case No. 01/2016; injunction order dated 07.12.2011; forged left thumb impression / impersonation in sale deed; cheating-fraud-impersonation prima facie disclosed; civil-vs-criminal dispute; application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Upon hearing the parties and perusing the records, the complaint as well as the materials collected during investigation disclose prima facie commission of cognizable offences. ¶6

Alok Kumar Vs the State of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 31.08.2017 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur Ara taking cognizance under Sections 420 and 34 IPC (G.R. No. 5522 of 2016) and the order dated 14.03.2019 of the Additional Sessions Judge VIII, Bhojpur at Ara rejecting the petitioner's revision (Cr. Rev No. 122 of 2018) should be quashed. +2 more

¶2

Court's answer

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara rightly took cognizance of the offences, and the revisional court correctly affirmed the said order by rejecting the revision petition.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

Upon hearing the parties and perusing the records, the complaint as well as the materials collected during investigation disclose prima facie commission of cognizable offences.

¶6

Key takeaways

The allegations levelled against the petitioner are of cheating, fraud, and impersonation.ratio¶6
There is no illegality in the impugned orders.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Sandeep Kumar, J) dismisses Criminal Miscellaneous No.67702 of 2019 seeking quashing of (i) the cognizance order dated 31.08.2017 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur Ara in G.R. No. 5522 of 2016 (arising out of Udwantnagar P.S. Case No. 403 of 2016, itself originating from Complaint Case No. 1729(C)/2016 of Shobha Kumari) taking cognizance under Sections 420 and 34 IPC, and (ii) the order dated 14.03.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge VIII, Bhojpur at Ara in Cr. Rev No. 122 of 2018 rejecting the petitioner's revision application. Holding that the complaint and investigation materials disclose prima facie commission of cognizable offences — the allegations against the petitioner being of cheating, fraud and impersonation (forged left thumb impression on a sale deed executed in disregard of an injunction of 07.12.2011 issued in Partition Suit No. 194/2018) — the court found the cognizance rightly taken, the revision correctly rejected, and no illegality in the impugned orders.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67702 of 2019

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-403 Year-2016 Thana- UDWANTNAGAR District- Bhojpur

¶3

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

¶4

Alok Kumar Son Of Ashok Kumar Singh @ Ashok Singh Resident Of Village - Pawat Behra, Agarsanda Behra, P.S.- Ara Mufffasil, Distt - Bhojpur.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Bihar

¶8

Shobha Kumari D/O Awadh Bihari Shaw R/O Village- Bhelie, P.S- Udwant Nagar District- Bhojpur At Ara

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

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

¶11

Appearance :

¶12

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, APP Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate

¶13

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

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶15

4 27-01-2026

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

¶17

APP for the State and the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

¶18

2 . This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.03.2019 passed in Cr. Rev No. 122 of 2018 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge VIII, Bhojpur at Ara by which the Court below rejected the revision application filed by the petitioner and also for quashing the order dated 31.08.2017, passed in G.R. No. 5522 of 2016 arising out of Udwantnagar P.S. Case No. 403 of 2016 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur Ara by which he took cognizance U/s 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons including the petitioner.

¶19

3 . The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant,

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67702 of 2019(4) dt.27-01-2026 2/4

¶21

namely Shobha Kumari, filed Complaint Case No. 1729(C)/2016 before the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara. In the said complaint, allegations were made against her brother Jiut Sah, her bhabhi Sheema Devi, Monu Kumar (purchaser), and Alok Kumar (the present petitioner). It was stated that the complainant’s father, Awadh Bihari Sah, had filed Partition Suit No. 194/2018 against the accused Jiut Sah and others. In the said partition suit, accused Jiut Sah appeared and filed his written statement, and the suit is presently pending before the Court of the Learned Sub JudgeXIV, Ara. During the pendency of the suit, an order of injunction dated 07.12.2011 was passed restraining the parties from transferring the suit property. Despite the said injunction, accused Jiut Sah violated the order and sold a portion of the disputed land to Monu Kumar. Thereafter, the complainant’s father as well as the complainant herself filed Miscellaneous Case No. 01/2016 against accused Jiut Sah, which is still pending at the stage of evidence. It is further alleged that accused Jiut Sah intentionally and fraudulently sold the remaining portion of the land which was the subject of Partition Suit No. 54/2010. It is further alleged that the left thumb impression of Awadh Bihari Sah, shown as a witness on the

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67702 of 2019(4) dt.27-01-2026 3/4

¶23

aforesaid sale deed, was forged and obtained through impersonation. The complainant came to know about the same after obtaining a certified copy of the sale deed. Thereafter, she attempted to lodge an FIR at Udwantnagar Police Station, but the police officials refused to register the case. Consequently, she sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur, through registered post dated 24.06.2016. Subsequently, the complainant filed the aforesaid Complaint Case No. 1729(C)/2016 before the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara, for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons including the present petitioner. The said complaint case was thereafter forwarded for investigation to Udwantnagar Police Station, pursuant to which Udwantnagar P.S. Case No. 403/2016, dated 24.11.2016, was registered.

¶24

4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature arising out of a partition suit, and therefore initiation of criminal proceedings is an abuse of the process of law. It is further contended that the petitioner has no role in the alleged execution of the sale deed and that no ingredients of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are made out against him.

¶25

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67702 of 2019(4) dt.27-01-2026 4/4

¶26

5 . Per contra, learned APP for the State and learned counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2 vehemently oppose the application. It is submitted that prima facie case has been found against the petitioner.

¶27

6 . Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon careful perusal of the records, this Court finds that the complaint as well as the materials collected during investigation disclose prima facie commission of cognizable offences. The allegations levelled against the petitioner is of cheating, fraud, and impersonation. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara has rightly taken cognizance of the offences, and the revisional court has correctly affirmed the said order by rejecting the revision petition. There is no illegality in the impugned orders.

¶28

7 . In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present application. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

¶29

Shishir/-

¶30

U T

¶31

(Sandeep Kumar, J)

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Rejection of the petitioner's revision application by order dated 14.03.2019 passed in Cr. Rev No. 122 of 2018 by the Additional Sessions Judge VIII, Bhojpur at Ara; together with the cognizance order dated 31.08.2017 passed in G.R. No. 5522 of 2016 (arising out of Udwantnagar P.S. Case No. 403 of 2016) by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur Ara taking cognizance under Sections 420 and 34 IPC — both sought to be quashed.¶2
Additional Sessions Judge VIII, Bhojpur at Ara (Cr. Rev No. 122 of 2018); Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur Ara (G.R. No. 5522 of 2016) · 14.03.2019
Prior proceeding
Informant Shobha Kumari filed Complaint Case No. 1729(C)/2016 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara.¶3
Prior proceeding
Allegations in the complaint were made against Jiut Sah (brother), Sheema Devi (bhabhi), Monu Kumar (purchaser) and Alok Kumar (the petitioner).¶3
Prior proceeding
Complainant's father Awadh Bihari Sah had filed Partition Suit No. 194/2018 against Jiut Sah and others.¶3
Prior proceeding
Partition Suit No. 194/2018 pending before the Sub Judge XIV, Ara; Jiut Sah appeared and filed his written statement.¶3
Prior proceeding
During the pendency of the partition suit, an injunction order dated 07.12.2011 restrained the parties from transferring the suit property.¶3
Prior proceeding
Despite the injunction, Jiut Sah allegedly sold a portion of the disputed land to Monu Kumar.¶3
Prior proceeding
Complainant's father and the complainant filed Miscellaneous Case No. 01/2016 against Jiut Sah, pending at the stage of evidence.¶3
Prior proceeding
Jiut Sah allegedly intentionally and fraudulently sold the remaining portion of land which was the subject of Partition Suit No. 54/2010.¶3
Prior proceeding
Allegation that the left thumb impression of Awadh Bihari Sah, shown as witness on the sale deed, was forged and obtained through impersonation; complainant learnt of it after obtaining a certified copy of the sale deed.¶3
Prior proceeding
Police at Udwantnagar Police Station refused to register an FIR; complainant sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur by registered post dated 24.06.2016.¶3
Prior proceeding
Complaint forwarded for investigation to Udwantnagar Police Station; Udwantnagar P.S. Case No. 403/2016 dated 24.11.2016 registered.¶3
Prior proceeding
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur Ara took cognizance under Sections 420 and 34 IPC against the accused persons including the petitioner, in G.R. No. 5522 of 2016.¶2
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's revision application (Cr. Rev No. 122 of 2018) against the cognizance order was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge VIII, Bhojpur at Ara on 14.03.2019.¶2

Alok Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alok Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjan Kumar Mishra Vs The State of Bihar

Arun Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Nirmal Singh @ Nirmal Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Prasad Vaze @ Prasad Madhav Vaze Vs the State of Bihar

Raghuvir Sharan @ Raghubeer Sharan Vs the State of Bihar

Sunil Kumar Paswan Vs The State of Bihar