Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.26017 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Binda Devi wife of Deo Prit Ojha 2. Deo Prit Ojha, Son of Late Jagdeo Ojha Both residents of Village- Milraj, Police Station-Barun, District-Aurangabad .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Ram Prit Ojha, Son of Late Jagdeo Ojha, resident of Village- Silauja, Police Station-Barun, District-Aurangabad .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER ------------------------ 3 12-04-2012 Heard Sri Bikramdeo Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Gulnar Begam, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and Sri Shailesh Kashyap, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of the informant /Opp.Party no.2. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 09.09.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad in Barun P.S. Case No.96 of 2008, G.R. No.1088 of 2008. By the said order, learned Magistrate differing with the police report has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] . Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a deed of gift was executed by mother of petitioner no.2 in his favour Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26017 of 2009 (3) dt.12-04-2012 2 / 3 2 in the year 1985 and mother died in the year 2006 and at a belated stage in the year 2008, a complaint petition was filed by Opp.Party no.2, who is own brother of petitioner no.2, on an allegation that the petitioners got a forged deed of gift prepared. He submits that no offence is made out against the petitioners. The case was investigated and final report was submitted by the police with an opinion that the case was of civil nature, but the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party no.2 submits that in an earlier proceeding, while their mother was alive, she had disclosed that she had never executed any deed of gift in favour of petitioner no.2. Be that as it may, without going into the merit of the case, the Court is of the opinion that the learned Magistrate, while passing the impugned order, differing with the police report has committed no error. The learned Magistrate, while differing with the police report, has asserted that almost all the witnesses in their statements recorded under Section 161of the Code of Criminal Procedure have supported the case and, thereafter, the learned Magistrate has passed order of cognizance. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26017 of 2009 (3) dt.12-04-2012 3 / 3 3 I do not find any defect in the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. NKS/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 471

Statute Text:
Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Using as genuine a forged document which is known to be forged. Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document.