Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.25703 of 2009 ====================================================== Ram Naresh Singh, S/o Sheojee Singh, R/o Village – Hasanpurwa, P.S. – Siwan (Mufassil) District – Siwan. At present R/o village – Bijay Hatta, P.S. – Siwan (Mufassail), District - Siwan. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. ……….. Opposite party Ist Set 2. Anup Kumar S/o Maya Prasad, R/o Muhalla – Fatehpur, P.S. – Siwan (Town), District - Siwan. At present R/o Village – Bijay Hatta, P.S. – Siwan (Mufassil), District - Siwan. .... .... Opposite Party 2nd Set ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 4 11-04-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amit Kumar Rakesh, learned counsel who has appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2. The petitioner while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has prayed for quashing of an order dated 02.07.2009 passed in Complaint Case No. 889 of 2009, Tr. No. 164 of 2009, whereby learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] . Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order submits that from the complaint petition itself it is evident that hardly it was a case of land dispute in between the parties. It was also argued that no offence either under Section 420 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25703 of 2009 (4) dt.11-04-2012 2 / 2 2 or 468 and 323 is made out on the basis of complaint petition and as such order of cognizance is liable to be set aside . Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that besides other offences there is allegation of assault and as such the learned Magistrate has rightly passed the order of cognizance. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. On the basis of averment made in the complaint petition as well as impugned order, the court is satisfied that the learned Magistrate while passing the order of cognizance has committed no error. The petition stands dismissed. If so advised, the petitioner may raise all the points which has been raised in the present petition or any other point(s), if available, at appropriate stage. Praful/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 468

Statute Text:
Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Forgery for the purpose of cheating. Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.