Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.7937 of 2011 ====================================================== Sunil Kumar Singh @ Sunil Kumar .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aaruni Singh,Adv. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Gautam,Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. P.K.Pandey, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 21-06-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is challenging he order dated 8th September 2010 by which the court below has taken cognizance under [STATUTE] . According to the complaint petition, complainant developed intimacy with the petitioner who had informed him that there was a Bolero vehicle of his friend Sri Arun Kumar, who wants to sell out the same and asked the complainant to come and see the condition of the vehicle. The complainant along with his friend had gone to Dalsingsarai on 31st January 2008 and the consideration money was fixed at Rs.3,30,000/-. After proper examination, complainant paid Rs.50,000/- and he was called on 6th February 2008 that his paper with regard to the vehicle was ready. On 7th February 2008 he paid Rs.2,30,000/- and sought time for payment of rest amount. A dispute arose between the parties Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7937 of 2011 (2) dt.21-06-2012 2 / 2 2 whereupon Panchayati was held in which Panches directed accused No.1 to return the money and in consequence thereof, the complainant will also return the vehicle. It has further been submitted that after six months, while washing of the vehicle was going on, it transpired that Chasis Number has been interpolated. The complainant had contacted petitioner for return of the money. It has been mentioned that he had gone to find out whereabouts of Sri Arun Kumar but it was found that he was a fictitious person. The Court has taken cognizance by the order impugned. I do not find any error in the order, as while taking cognizance, only prima facie case has to be seen. This petition is accordingly, dismissed However, liberty is given to the petitioner to file a petition in the court below at the stage of framing of charge and the court below will passé a reasoned order in accordance with law. Jay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 469

Statute Text:
Section 469 of the Indian Penal Code. Forgery for the purpose of harming the reputation of any person or knowing that it is likely to be used for that purpose. Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document forged shall harm the reputation of any party, or knowing that it is likely to be used for that purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.