Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.3773 of 2011 ====================================================== Sri Anil Kumar Kolluri .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raviondra Kumar, Adv. For O.P.No.2 Mr. Binay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Arvind Prasad Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 5 02-11-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In this case, petitioners are challenging the order dated 29th March 2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 2854 (C) of 2009 for the offences [STATUTE] ars that it is a trade union dispute concerning appointment of Vice President and the claim has been made that the O.P.No.2 was wrongly removed onthe false ground of family dispute. The O.P.No.2 could know his removal from the said post when it was notified in the journal. The statement made in the complaint petition does not constitute offence as it is out and out a trade union dispute Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3773 of 2011 (5) dt.02-11-2012 2 / 2 2 which can be settled either under the Trade union Act or the petitioners may move before the civil court of competent jurisdiction. In such view of the matter, the order of cognizance is quashed and this petition is allowed. Jay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 471

Statute Text:
Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Using as genuine a forged document which is known to be forged. Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document.