Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.1152 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Md. Imran Sabir S/O Safiruddin Resident Of Village- Bageswari, P.O.- Gairki, P.S.- Jokihaat, District- Araria .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director General Of Police Bihar, Patna 3. The Superintendent Of Police Distt.- Araria, Bihar 4. The Sub Divisional Police Officer Distt.- Araria, Bihar 5. The Station Head Officer P.S.- Jokihaat, Distt.- Araria 6. Mr. Raqib S/O Farman Vill.- Gogra, P.S.- Jokihaat, Distt.- Araria .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 6 10-10-2012 At the outset learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.3 in paragraph-5 inadvertently a wrong assertion has been made that charge-sheet has already been submitted in the competent court of law. He submits that, as a matter of fact, the accusation has been found true against the petitioner but till date charge-sheet has not been submitted. In that view of the matter, the assertion with respect to submission of charge-sheet in paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit of respondent no.3 is ignored. Heard Mr. S.B.K Manglam learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A.K.Thakur learned counsel for the informant and Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1152 of 2011 (6) dt.10-10-2012 2 learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The prayer of the petitioner is to quash the prosecution of the petitioner in Joikhat P.S. Case No.196 of 2011 dated 6.8.2011 instituted for the offence punishable under [STATUTE] . The case was initially instituted as a complaint which was referred to the police under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure pursuant to which the present F.I.R. was instituted and investigation was taken up. From the pleading of the parties, it is apparent that the case is still under investigation. The F.I.R. discloses commission of cognizable offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has falsely been implicated in the present case. The credibility or otherwise of the defence version cannot be looked into at this stage. At the stage of investigation it is for the police to investigate the matter and find out as to who the offenders are. The writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. However, since the F.I.R., in question, was registered in August, 2011, the investigating agency must Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1152 of 2011 (6) dt.10-10-2012 3 promptly take all necessary steps, conclude the investigation, and submit its report to the court at the earliest. While saying so, I make it clear that the investigating agency would be free to submit such report as it considers appropriate on the basis of materials collected in course of investigation. Md.S./- (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.