Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.10094 of 2010 ================================================== Jai Kumar Paswan, Son of Late Sadhu Saran Paswan, Resident of Village:- Pardumanpur, Cheran Tola-Nayamatpur, Police Station :- Harnaut, District:-Nalanda, .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Md. Mobinuddin Son of Hakim Mohamad, Sadik Hebul Keyam, Resident of Village :-Sirchandpur, P.S:-Harnaut, District:-Nalanda, At Present Mohalla :-Dariyapur Dubey Lane, P.S:-Pirbahore, District:-Patna, .... .... Opposite Parties. ================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 4 26-07-2012 Heard Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Dhaneshwar Prasad Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nawal Kishore Prasad, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Despite the fact that notice was validly served on informant/opposite party no. 2, the opposite party no. 2 has preferred not to appear. The sole petitioner, who was arrayed as a witness in the sale-deed, has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash an order dated 27.01.2010 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif, in Bihar P.S. Case No. 191 of 2007. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under [STATUTE] . Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10094 of 2010 (4) dt.26-07-2012 2 / 3 2 Initially, a complaint was filed by Opp. Party No. 2 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda, which was referred to police and as such, an F.I.R., vide Bihar P.S. Case No. 191 of 2007 was registered, in which, petitioner was arrayed as accused no. 5. It was alleged by the complainant/opp. party no. 2 that while he returned from foreign, he noticed that his own land was sold by his own brother to some of the accused persons, particularly, Smt. Kalo Devi, Balgovind Paswan and Batoran Paswan, through registered sale-deed, in which, petitioner was alleged to be a witness. After investigation, police submitted final report, which was accepted by the learned Magistrate. The acceptance of final report was assailed by Opp. Party No. 2 by way of filing a revision petition, vide Cr. Revision No. 343 of 2008, which was allowed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Nalanda, Biharsharif and matter was remitted back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda and thereafter, learned Magistrate has passed order of cognizance on 27.01.2010 for the offences, as indicated above. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that the order of cognizance, so far as purchasers of the land, who were arrayed as accused nos. 1, 2 & 3 in the complaint petition is concerned, has already been quashed by a Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10094 of 2010 (4) dt.26-07-2012 3 / 3 3 Bench of this Court by order dated 16.12.2010, vide Criminal Misc. No. 14863 of 2010. In view of the facts and circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that prayer for setting aside the impugned order may not be refused, primarily on the ground that order of cognizance, in respect of other co-accused against whom there was serious allegation, has already been set aside. Keeping in view the fact that during investigation, case was found false as well as the fact that case of other accused persons has already been allowed, the present petition stands allowed. Order of cognizance dated 27.01.2010 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Bihar P.S. Case No. 191 of 2007, so far as petitioner is concerned, is hereby set aside. Anay/- (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.