Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12046 of 2011 (2) dt.19-07-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.12046 of 2011 ====================================================== Ashwani Kumar Shrivastava @ Benu Prasad .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhndi Upadhay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 19-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In this case petitioner is challenging the order dated 4th January 2011 passed in Complaint Case No. 237 of 2003 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur. In the complaint petition it has been stated that the petitioner had approached the complainant and shown intention to sell the disputed property to the complainant. He was interested along with wife to purchase the land and, accordingly money for both the lands was paid to the tune of Rs.74,000/-. Further it has been stated that the accused-petitioner has executed the sale deed of land in favour of complainant but he never handed over the possessions. It has been stated in the complaint petition that he always approached for giving possession but for one reason or the other, the petitioner has evaded which led to filing of the present case. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12046 of 2011 (2) dt.19-07-2012 After cognizance [STATUTE] and the petitioner filed a discharge petition which has been rejected by the impugned order. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute that after taking payment from this complainant they had executed the land but only dispute remains about giving possession of the land and the present complaint has been filed with intention to grab Rs.34,000/-. He further submits that grant of possessions has been accepted by complainant which is apparent from the written statement filed by the complainant in T.S.No. 72 of 2002 which has been filed by Anupam Kumar Srivastava and, as such the court below has wrongly refused to discharge the petitioner. In the written statement, both the husband and wife made statement that the land in dispute are in their possession. Counsel for the State has submitted that this is matter of evidence and the defence cannot be decided at this stage, that too, of a different suit which can only be seen during the trial Having considered the rival contention of the parties, it appears that the submission of the State is completely correct that these are matters of defence and can be seen during the trial which will be raised by the parties. During the trial the petitioner will be at liberty to Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12046 of 2011 (2) dt.19-07-2012 produced the relevant documents in order to substantiate his claim and the court below will pass the order in accordance with law. With this observation, this petition is disposed of. Jay/- (Shivaji Pandey, 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.