Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19965 of 2011 (4) dt.17-12-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.19965 of 2011 ====================================================== Gangadhar Jha & Anr. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Anr. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Amitabh Bhardwaj, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 4 17-12-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. In this case, petitioners are challenging the order dated 3rd May 2010 passed in Tr. No. 1825/2011 arising from Complaint Case No. 1610/2009 whereby and whereunder the court below has taken cognizance for offence under [STATUTE] . The counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the complaint petition the allegation has been made that the petitioners had sold the land to the complainant for a consideration amount of Rs. 88,000/- but when he had gone to take possession of the property, one Ashok Kumar Jha informed the complainant, the land in question belongs to him and Radhawati Devi is not the wife of Jay Nandan Jha, as parents house of the petitioner No. 2 is Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19965 of 2011 (4) dt.17-12-2012 at Sadipur whereas parents house of the wife of Jay Nandan Jha is Bainaya village. The counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 2 is wife of Jay Nandan Jha is apparent from the annexures attached to this petition and the allegation has been made that she is not the wife of Jay Nandan Jha is completely belied. From the photograph attached with identity card issued by the Election Commission and voter list are sufficient materials evidence to prove the relationship of the petitioner being wife of Late Jay Nandan Jha. The counsel for the other side has submitted in civil proceeding in between the petitioners and others, it has been decided that petitioner No. 2 is not the wife of Jay Nandan Jha, as the wife of Jay Nandan Jha has already died. In reply, counsel for the petitioners submits that as it was a quite different matter and has nothing to do with the present case and as such, he has not challenged the order but merely because he has not challenged, will not come in the way of the petitioners of proving the fact, petitioner No. 2 is wife of Jay Nandan Jha. This Court cannot decide disputed question of fact but the facts in the complaint petition constitute prima facie against the petitioners of impersonation and the court below Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19965 of 2011 (4) dt.17-12-2012 during trial, he will decide all aspects of the matter, including the relationship of the complainant with Jay Nandan Jha as has been claimed by her including applicability of judgment of that civil suit in the present complaint case. With this observation, this petition is disposed of. Mahesh/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 406

Statute Text:
Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal breach of trust. Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.