Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.3443 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Kamalesh Kumar Singh son of Late Baikunth Singh, resident of village- Vishunpura, P.O.-Karup, P.O.-Sasaram District-Rohtas, at present Madipur Power House Chauk, P.O.-Muzaffarpur, P.S.-Kaji Mahamadpur, District-Muzaffarpur. 2. Smt. Sujata Kukmari daughter of Late Baldeo Roy, resident of Ghoranpura, P.O.-Daniyawa, PS.-Fatuha, District-Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Rambachan Singh, son of Late Mewa Mahto, R/o village-Chullaichak, P.S.-Danapur, Now Rupaspur, District-Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shyam Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Gajanan Arun, Advocate For the State Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 3 23-04-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant and learned counsel for the State. In this case, petitioners are challenging the order of cognizance dated 30.7.2010 whereby and whereunder the court below has taken cognizance for offences under [STATUTE] against all the accused persons. In the present case, petitioners are challenging the order impugned on the ground that they themselves have purchased a property for a valuable consideration and they are no way instrumental to sell the property of the complainant and so far against the petitioners no case is made out under the aforesaid Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3443 of 2011 (3) dt.23-04-2012 2 / 2 2 section of the Indian Penal Code as the whole forgery has been committed by accused Nos. 1 to 3 and they have sold the land of third party/the complainant. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the opposite party No. 2 is the land owner whereas the accused Nos. 1 to 3 are no way connected with the land and even then they have sold the property of the complainant. He has given concession to the petitioners stating that they have purchased for a valuable consideration of money without having knowledge of act of forgery committed by accused Nos. 1 and 3, and as such, taking lenient view of the matter, the complainant is not interested to continue prosecution against the petitioners. Looking to the submission of the complainant and the nature of the allegation made in the complaint petition, the order of cognizance so far it relates to the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 is quashed but with regard to other persons, trial will continue. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Mahesh/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 420

Statute Text:
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating and there by dishonestly inducing delivery of property, or the making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.