IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.13315 of 2008
======================================================
1. Ajay Kumar
2. Ashwini Kumar
3. Sushil Kumar
4. Sideshwar Prasad
5. Babita Kumari
6. Reshmi Kumari
…. …. Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Bihar
2. Rameshwar Prasad
…. …. Opposite Parties
***********
3 9-9-2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This application has been filed for
quashing the order dated 9.10.2006 passed by Sri
Dhirendra Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st
Class, Biharsharif, Nalanda in Complaint Case
No. 300(c)/2006 whereby cognizance has been
taken under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and
120B IPC and summons have been ordered to be
issued against the petitioners.
Case of the complainant (opposite party
no.2) is that he purchased 82 ½ decimals of land
appertaining to plot nos. 79, 81, 123, 94 and
1203 from accused no.1, came in cultivating
possession of the same, rent receipts issued in
his name, sale deed is said executed in name of
his son.
Further it is said that accused nos.1,2
2
and 3 executed sale deeds in favour of accused
nos. 4 to 8 including petitioner nos. 4,5 and 6
in respect of very same plot by executing three
sale deeds. Accused nos. 9 to 12 have been
alleged for participation in commission of
forgery playing role of witnesses, identifiers
and scribers. T.S.no. 27/06 is said filed on
behalf of complainant-Opposite party no.2 in
respect of above said three fabricated sale
deeds and the same was pending in the Court of
Subordinate Judge, Biharsharif.
Further allegation is that at around
5.00 PM on 1.4.2006 accused nos. 1 to 3 along
with 5-6 unknown persons entered the compound of
complainant, hurling abuses although information
in respect thereof was given to the Police but
no action was taken. Hence the Complaint.
With having similar allegation accused
nos. 7 and 8 along with one Rajesh Kumar @
Rajesh Kapoor shown accused no.13, approached
this Court against the impugned order of court
below vide Cr.Misc.No. 47850 of 2006, opposite
party no.2 was noticed, State also appeared,
after hearing the parties, order of cognizance
as well as the criminal proceeding was quashed
3
by a Bench of this Court.
Taking the same into consideration,
this application is allowed. The impugned order
of cognizance dated 9.10.2006 as well as
criminal proceeding is quashed.
(Mandhata Singh, J)
AI
