Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.590 of 2012 ====================================================== Shiv Narayan Yadav S/O Late Mahavir Yadav R/O Village - Guriya, P.S. Jadia, District - Supaul .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The District Magistrate, Supaul 2. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Supaul, District - Supaul 3. The Sub - Divisional Officer, Triveniganj, District - Supaul 4. The Block Development Officer, Triveniganj, District - Supaul 5. The Superintendent of Police, Supaul, District - Supaul 6. The Officer - In - Charge, Triveniganj, District - Supaul 7. Poonam Devi W/O Viso Yadav R/O Navdihi, P.S. Jadia, District - Supaul .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S.Pradhan, Sr. Advocate Mr.Sanjeev Nikesh & Ranjeet Choubey, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. A.K.Keshari, AAG-XI & Mr. Ujjwal Kumar Sinha, AC to AAG-XI. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 3 08-11-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. On the basis of the written report submitted by the Block Development Officer, Triveniganj, Triveniganj P.S.Case No.65 of 2012 dated 18.05.2012 was registered for the offence punishable under [STATUTE] in which it the petitioner and others have been named as accused. In the present writ petition, the prayer is to quash the aforesaid F.I.R. Patna High Court CR. WJC No.590 of 2012 (3) dt.08-11-2012 2 It is contended that on the basis of the allegations made in the FIR, no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner and the petitioner is being maliciously prosecuted in the present case. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has filed a counter affidavit in which, it has been clearly stated that the petitioner is not only named in the FIR but in course of investigation witnesses have come forward to support the allegation and the case has been found true in course of supervision too. Be that as it may, taking into consideration the fact that the FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. It is dismissed, accordingly. B.Kr./- (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 468

Statute Text:
Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Forgery for the purpose of cheating. Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.