Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.15461 of 2010 ====================================================== Akhileshwar Kumar Srivastava son of Late Bachchu Lal, resident of Village-Agiaon, Police Station-Agiaon(Garhni), District.-Bhojpur At Ara. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Ashok Kumar Singh, son of Chandradeo Singh, resident of Village- Saripur, Police Station-Sandesh, District -Bhojpur At Ara. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER ------------------- 4 24-08-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shyam Bihari Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order of cognizance, which was passed long back on 21.01.2006 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara in Sandesh P.S. Case No.59 of 2000. By the said order, the learned Magistrate after receipt of the chargesheet and examining the materials available on record has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] . Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued many points. However, the Court was not inclined to hear the petitioner on merit only on the ground that in this case, order of cognizance Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15461 of 2010 (4) dt.24-08-2012 2 / 2 2 was passed long back in the year 2006 and from the ordersheet of the case in G.R. No.1584/2000 , Tr. No.1884/2008 ( Sandesh P.S. Case No.59 of 2000) , which is from 26.09.2000 till 07.01.2010 it appears that the petitioner had not appeared before the court below. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to persuade this Court that he was not aware of the present case as he was arrested in another case and when he came to know about this case, he approached this Court. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that after investigation, the police has already submitted chargesheet and cognizance order was passed long back in the year, 2006, the Court is of the opinion that it would not be appropriate to interfere with order of cognizance, which primarily suffers with no defect. If so advised, the petitioner may take all the pleas, which have been taken in the present case, at the appropriate stage. With above observation, the petition stands disposed of. 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.