Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.21105 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Ashfaq Ahmad Khan 2. Md. Wadiujama Khan 3. Kamrujama Khan 4. Khalil Kujama Khan, all sons of Md. Yushuf 5. Abdul Quadir Khan, son fo Manif Khan 6. Md. Akhtar Hussain, son of Ulfat Hussain 7. Md. Abdul Hussain Khan @ Abdul Hasan Kham, son of Sadiq Khan 8. Md. Murtuja Khan, son of Md. Sharif Khan 9. Sheo Shankar Mahto, son of late Raghunath Mahto, resident of Village Damodar Pur, P.S. Bibhutipur, District- Samastipur., All petitioner nos. 1 to 8 are resident of Village-Kewas Nizamat, P.S. Samastipur (Muffasil), District- Samastipur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Jubeda Khatoon, wife of Md. Sahin, Village Kawesh Nijamath, P.S. Samastipur, district- Samastipur. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vindya Keshri Singh, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Shekhar Kumar Singh Mr. Pankaj Kumar Jha, advocate. For the Opposite Party No.2: Mr. Manish Kumar No.13 Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Binod Kumar No.3, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 7 20-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.7.2010 passed in C.R. No. 84 of 2009, arising out of Samastipur P.S. Case No.447 of 2005 by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioners under [STATUTE] . Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21105 of 2011 (7) dt.20-09-2012 2 3. From the First Information Report/complaint petition it appears that the complainant-cum-informant Jubeda Khatoon, wife of Md. Sahin has made an allegation that her husband had transferred the land bearing Kheshra Nos.3201 and 3202, area 12 Dhurs attached with Khaprapose house by registered deed dated 30.8.2000 by way of Den Mehar and she was continuing in possession from the date of execution of the registered deed. It has been alleged that the petitioners who are accused had greedy eyes over the property always wanted to usurp the same. In this connection on 25.9.2000 accused nos. 1 to 4 with the help of accused nos. 5 to 9 created a forged Panchnama giving bribe to one Sheo Shankar Mahto and got mutation of the land. 4. On her complaint, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Samastipur enquired into the matter and found that forged document was created by the accused persons and wrongly got mutation of the land and recommended for taking action against them. It has been further alleged that the document dated 30.8.2000 was/is completely a forged and fabricated document and this had been created with an intention to deprive her from the valuable property. A case was registered as Complaint Case No.883 of 2005 and the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21105 of 2011 (7) dt.20-09-2012 3 Magistrate in exercise of power under 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as „the Code‟) sent the matter to the police for institution and investigation of the case. The case was registered as Samastipur P.S. Case No. 447 of 2005 under [STATUTE] . 5. The police after investigation found the case to be false and accordingly submitted final form vide Final Form No. 160 of 2007 dated 30.6.2007. While the investigation was pending the complainant/informant filed a protest petition on 10.5.2006 in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur in connection with Samastipur P.S. Case No.447 of 2005. The protest petition was treated as complaint petition and after enquiry took cognizance under [STATUTE] . 6. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that these petitioners had moved before this Court in anticipatory bail vide Cr. Misc. No. 44644 of 2010, this Court rejected the anticipatory bail vide order dated 19.4.2011 did not treat the case of civil dispute. After refusal of anticipatory bail, the petitioners filed the present quashing application on 1.7.2011 and this Court vide order dated 16.8.2001 stayed Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21105 of 2011 (7) dt.20-09-2012 4 the proceedings of the court below. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from the nature of allegation that has been made in the complaint petition it is primarily a civil dispute and by creating a camouflage, the present case has been filed giving label of criminal offence which is impermissible. He further submits that the petitioners are basically challenging the mutation that has been done on the basis of the Panchnama asserting the Panchnama to be illegal on the ground that Panchnama could not have been created in repugnant to registered deed. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that getting of the order of mutation on the basis of Panchnama branding it to be fraudulent one cannot constitute criminal offence as there is no claim that parties to Panchnama have been impersonated nor there is claim that signature appearing in Panchnama are tampered or manufactured and claimed that the present case is completely covered by judgment reported Md. Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in 2009(4) P.L.J.R. 99 SC. 8. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that petitioners have suppressed the fact of moving this Court in anticipatory bail which was rejected by Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21105 of 2011 (7) dt.20-09-2012 5 this Court and as such petitioners are first required to appear before the court and take step for their bail. A person who is flouting the order as their bail was rejected by this Court, the present application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable as it will amount to premium to law breaker. In support his contention

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.