Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.18017 of 2011 ====================================================== Arun Kumar Jaiswal, S/O Late Haridwar Jaiswal, Resident of Village Pagara Bazar, P.S. Bijaipur, District Gopalganj. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Keshav Prasad, S/O Late Brahmdeo Prasad, Resident of Village Singhpur, P.S. Bijaipur, District Gopalganj. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.29310 of 2009 ====================================================== Arun Kumar Jaiswal, son of late Haridwar Jaiswal, resident of Village- Pagara Bazar, P.S. Bijaipur, District-Gopalganj. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Keshav Prasad, S/O Late Brahmdeo Prasad, Resident of Village Singhpur, P.S. Bijaipur, District Gopalganj. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In Cr.Misc. No.18017 of 2011) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, Mr. Natraj Verma, Advocates. For the Opposite Party No.2: Mr. Ram Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. D. Mehta, A.P.P. (In Cr.Misc. No.29310 of 2009) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, Mr. Natraj Verma, Advocates. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. For the State : Mr. D. Mehta, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 5 12-12-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2. Cr. Misc. No. 29310 of 2009 has been filed for Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18017 of 2011 (5) dt.12-12-2012 2 quashing the order dated 15.2.2008 passed in Bijaipur P.S. Case No.50 of 2007 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioner under [STATUTE] . Cr. Misc. No.18017 of 2011 has been filed for quashing the order dated 3.3.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gopalganj in G.R. No.12397 of 2007, T.R. No.1810 of 2011, arising out of Bijaipur P.S. Case No.50 of 2007 by which he has refused to discharge the petitioner. One Keshav Prasad filed a written complaint to the Officer Incharge, Bijaipur police station making an allegation that petitioner of this case was running a fictitious Bank and he had shown the doubt that he had fled away with the deposits of the villagers. The written complaint has set criminal case in motition as aforesaid and the court below took cognizance under the aforesaid sections and later on the discharge application filed by the petitioner met with the same consequences vide order dated 3.3.2011 as the court did not find merit in the discharge application and dismissed the same. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18017 of 2011 (5) dt.12-12-2012 3 This Court had issued notice to the informant and on his appearance a supplementary affidavit has been field today stating therein that the parties have settled their dispute outside the court. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that whatever the confusion was in the mind of complainantt that has been sorted out and case was filed under wrong impression. He has further submitted that he has not fled away with money of the villagers as no investor has/had raised such grievance. As the matter relates to a private dispute, no material has been collected during investigation to show the petitioner had fled away with money of any investor. This Court feels the dispute is completely a private dispute having no material, affecting public in general, it will be appropriate to apply the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiji alias Pappu and others Vs. Radhika and another, reported in 2012 (1) PLJR (SC) 133. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the High Court comes to a conclusion where there is no chance of recording conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility, the court can interfere even in the case of non-compoundable offence. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18017 of 2011 (5) dt.12-12-2012 4 In this case also the case has been filed on the basis of mere suspicion and the record shows that there was no investment whatsoever by any of the person and apprehension that he fled away is belied from the fact that still he is operating the said Bank. So much so both the parties have settled the dispute whatsoever against each other and in this view of the matter the person who set the criminal case in motion does not want to prosecute case. In this view of the matter, the order of cognizance and order of discharge as aforesaid are quashed. Accordingly both the applications are allowed. Vinay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 467

Statute Text:
Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code. Forgery of a valuable security, will or authority to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive any money, etc. Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.