Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45095 of 2008 (09) dt.28-06-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.45095 of 2008 ====================================================== Arindam Shahi .... .... Petitioner/s Versus State Of Bihar Thru.Collector .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Shankar Ganguli Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha-Advs. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh-A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH ORAL ORDER 09 28-06-2012 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the name of the petitioner in the cause title of the petition. This application is being filed to set aside the cognizance order dated 16.02.2002 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran in and against one Complaint Case no.110-C of 2002. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Allegation, in brief, is that petitioner’s father Ranvijay Sahi retained excess land in ceiling proceeding showing petitioner’s status as of an independent unit. The main allegation is that this petitioner was shown major while he was a minor, more specifically said by this petitioner nine years old. A certificate from Allahabad Madhyamik Siksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh was submitted on his father’s behalf also. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in case allegation is accepted in its totality then also no criminal liability or any type of liability can be fixed upon the petitioner as has not been alleged for any act. I also agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that for the act Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45095 of 2008 (09) dt.28-06-2012 of his father, no cognizance can be taken against this petitioner fixing any criminal liability. Accordingly, this quashing application is hereby allowed. The order of cognizance dated 16.02.2002 for the offence under [STATUTE] including further prosecution is hereby quashed. Vikash/- (Mandhata Singh, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 420

Statute Text:
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating and there by dishonestly inducing delivery of property, or the making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.