Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.41856 of 2011 Binoy Krishna Shukla, Son of Late Uma Kant Shukla, resident of Village-Kanhauli, P.S. Mahua, District-Vaishali --- Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Pankaj Kant Shukla, Son of Late Prem Kant Shukla, resident of Village- Kanhauli, P.S. Mahua, District-Vaishali-- Opp.Parties ---------------------------------- 02 16-01-2012 Heard Sri Bishwanath Prasad Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satyendra Prasad, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. The petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of Complaint Case no.2781 of 2011 pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur. Sri Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner at the very outset submits that perusal of the complaint petition itself discloses no offence and in that view of the matter the complaint petition is liable to be set aside. In support of his argument, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has referred to a case reported in 2010 (1) BBCJ 289(SC) (Md. Ibrahim & Ors Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.). It was submitted that the allegation disclosed in the complaint petition makes it clear that for settling civil dispute, the present complaint petition has been filed. It was submitted that in view of Judgment of the Apex Court, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 (State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal), this Court is competent to quash even 2 complaint petition if the complaint does not disclose any offence. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has further relied on a Judgment reported in 1999(3) PLJR 268 ( Ramesh Kumar Verma Vs. State of Bihar ). It was submitted that this Court in Ramesh Kumar Verma‟s case has quashed the complaint petition in absence of disclosure of any offence. On the aforesaid grounds, it has been prayed to set aside the entire complaint case. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner concedes that in the present case, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after filing of the complaint petition had transferred the case to the court of learned Magistrate for enquiry under Section 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and till date no order summoning the accused has been passed. I have perused the complaint petition. In the complaint petition, there is specific allegation that accused persons had executed a sale deed of those lands, which were lying in the share of the complainant and it has been alleged that a forged sale deed has been executed. On perusal of the complaint petition itself, the Court is satisfied that it cannot be said that the complaint petition does not disclose any offence. So far as Md. Ibrahim‟s case ( supra) is concerned, the Apex Court in paragraph-7 of its Judgment has also indicated that even in a case, where both civil and criminal liability is made, criminal prosecution may not be interfered with. At this stage, it would be appropriate to quote paragraph-7 of the Judgment of Md. Ibrahim‟s case, which is as follows: “This Court has time and again drawn 3 attention to the growing tendency of complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused , or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurize parties to settle civil disputes. But at the same, it should be noted that several disputes of a civil nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal offences, even if they also amount to civil disputes.[ See: G. Sagar Suri Vs. State of U.P. ( 2000(2) SCC 636] and Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. [ 2006(6) SCC 736]. Let us examine the matter keeping the said principles in mind. [STATUTE] .” So far as Bhajanlal‟s case is concerned, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has classified certain cases for interference even at the initial stage, but in paragraph-108 of its Judgment, the Apex Court has made it clear that such power should be exercised in exceptional cases. Time without number, it has been held that while exercising power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , this Court shall refrain from interfering with a criminal case at the initial or interlocutory stage. Even the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in a case reported in 1995 (3) Cr.L.J. 2935 (G.N. Hegde Vs. S. Bangarappa & Ors) has used the word „admonition‟ against the superior courts in interfering at the initial stage of a criminal case. So far as the present case is concerned, fact remains that till date no process has been issued against the petitioner and, as 4 such, it would not be appropriate for this Court to quash the complaint petition, which prima facie discloses of an offence. I do not find any merit in the petition. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, 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.