Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.198 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Nav Ratan Jhunjhunwala S/o Shri Om Prakash Jhunjhunwala, R/o 703,10th A Main,Jai Nagar,4th Floor,PS-Jai Nagar,Banglore-560011. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Sunil Kumar Tiwari S/o Late Rameshwar Tiwari, R/o Moh-Kalyani Co- Operative Harnichak,Anishabad, PS-Beur, District-Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, Adv. Mr. Akash Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr Hemant Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Anand Kishore Choudhary, APP For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Manindra Kishore Singh, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 5 25-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2. 2. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order of cognizance dated 21.6.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 223(C)/2009 for offences under [STATUTE] . 3. The complaint case has been filed by the O.P. No. 2 where it has been alleged that he is a Managing Director of Nilam Developers Pvt. Ltd. while he was constructing an apartment over his land as Madhav Apartment, his some friends were interested for flat but could not provide them as all flats were already booked. But near his apartment, he found Signboard of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.198 of 2011 (5) dt.25-09-2012 2 / 5 2 proposed site of apartment by Durga Projects and Infrastructure Private Ltd. having its registered office, Kolkata. The complainant in order to help his friends went to the office of the said Durga Projects & Infrastructure and made a request on behalf of his friends for booking apartments. In course of discussion they produced the registered sale deed and the agreement from there he found that his signature had been shown as a witness upon which he was shocked and surprised. In the complaint petition the complainant has stated that the signature appearing on the sale deed was forged and fabricated and he had no occasion to sign as witness of sale deed. In the complaint petition the complainant has submitted that he had approached to the Registrar of the Registry Office for obtaining the certified copy of registered sale deed but was refused on the ground that only the vendor and vendee could be provided registered sale deed. 4. The court below on the basis of materials available on record has taken cognizance under [STATUTE] . 5. From the record it appears that the petitioner has filed a criminal case vide Krishna Puri P.S. Case No. 255 of 2009 for offences under sections 420, 406, and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code in which the complainant/O.P. No. 2 has been arrayed as an accused along with the other persons. From the fact Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.198 of 2011 (5) dt.25-09-2012 3 / 5 3 mentioned in the F.I.R. it appears that allegation has been made by the petitioner that the O.P. No. 2 had set up a fictitious lady in the name of Shanti Devi misappropriated the amount of Rs. 21,57,000/- introduced her owner of disputed land and she was in need for money for construction of her house at her native village. In the FIR it has been alleged that the complainant had played very active role in execution of the sale deed. Petitioner has filed a civil suit vide Civil Suit No. 42 of 2009 against original Shanti Devi with following reliefs:- “(a) That on adjudication by decree of the court the plaintiff title over schedule-I property of the plaint be held being bonafide purchaser for value from the defendant. (b) That by decree of the court it be further declared that the plaintiff is entitled to carry on development work over the suit property as developer described n schedule I, II and III of the parties. (c) That by decree of permanent injunction the defendant be restrained permanently by an order of injunction to interfere with the title and possession of schedule-I property of the plaint and further in putting any hindrance by her or through her men in Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.198 of 2011 (5) dt.25-09-2012 4 / 5 4 the development work of suit property described in Schedule-I, II and III of the plaint. (d) That during the pendency of the suit the defendant personally or through her men be restrained in any manner from putting any hindrance in obstruction in developing the suit property described in schedule-I, II and III of the plaint. (e) That cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff against the defendant. (f) That any other relief or reliefs be awarded to the plaintiff against the defendant to the plaintiff is found entitled to. 6. The counsel for the petitioner submits that it is completely a civil dispute and the criminal proceeding is an abuse of the process of the Court. Secondly, he has raised that no case is made out against the petitioner as from the narration of the fact it only shows that he was only a witness of the sale deed and by being a witness he had no way connected to transfer the right and title to the petitioner. Mere appearance of name of O.P. No. 2 in sale deed does make the petitioner committed any offence as such it is primarily a civil dispute. He has further submitted that it is a malicious prosecution in order to devour amount which he obtained with help of fictitious lady, namely, Shanti Devi. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.198 of 2011 (5) dt.25-09-2012 5 / 5 5 7. In support of his contention, he has relied on judgment 1998 (5) SCC 749 (Pepsi Food Ltd. & Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate & others), 2009 (4) PLJR SC 99 (Md. Ibrahim & Ors. V. State of Bihar and Another), 2010 (4) PLJR 777 (Bachchu Pd. Mandal v. State of Bihar) and 2011 (13) SCC 412(Thermax Ltd. v. K.M.Johny).

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.