Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.2034 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Braj Kishor Singh @ Dr. Braj Kishore Singh, s/o late Basudeo Singh R/O Vill- Birpur P.S- Birpur, Distt- Supaul. 2. Sanjay Kumar Singh @ Sanjay Singh, s/o Dr. Braj Kishore Singh R/O Vill- Birpur P.S- Birpur, Distt- Supaul. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Gajendra Narain Singh, son of late Bed Narain Singh, resident of village Birpur, P.S. Birpur, Distt. Supaul. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.S. Sharma, Adv. : Mr. A.K. Sinha, Adv. For the State : Dr. M.K. Gautam, A.P.P. For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL ORDER 3. 05-11-2012 Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and the State. The Petitioners seek quashing of the entire proceeding including the order dated 26.9.2011 passed in Birpur P.S. Case No. 110 of 2005 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Birpur, by which he has taken cognizance under [STATUTE] . Background facts of the case is that the Petitioner No. 1 had purchased five Katthas of land in the name of Petitioner No. 2 who happened to be his son in the year 1979 from one Bhola Sah. Subsequently, a Title Suit was initiated for 51 Bighas Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2034 of 2012 (3) dt.05-11-2012 2 / 3 2 of land by the ancestor of the Opposite Party No. 2, Bhola Sah and others. No. doubt, the Opposite party No. 2 won the case till the Supreme Court. In the year 1980, a 144 Cr. P.C. proceeding was initiated between the parties in which the Petitioners produced the sale deed dated 26.5.1979 and the Opposite Party No. 2 received the same on 9.9.2005. It is on receipt of the same that he alleged that the said sale deed was forged and fabricated and filed the present Complaint. It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that even though the First Information Report was filed on 21.10.2005 Final Report was submitted in the year 2006, in which, period of protest was filed by the Opposite Party No. 2, but, no action was taken in the matter. On 26.2.2011 cognizance was taken and notices were issued under [STATUTE] which prescribed three years R.I. beyond the period of limitation. The submission is that without condoning the period of limitation, cognizance could not have been taken after six years of the knowledge of the Complainant that the sale deed was forged. On the other hand, the counsel for the Complainant Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2034 of 2012 (3) dt.05-11-2012 3 / 3 3 submits that in the facts of the case, a clear case of forgery is made out and hence, the Petitioners should be prosecuted. Having gone through the records of the case and the submission raised on behalf of the Petitioners, I am inclined to accept the same and hence, the entire proceeding including the order dated 26.9.2011 passed in Birpur P.S. Case No.110 of 2005 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Birpur, is hereby quashed. S.Ali (Anjana Prakash, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 465

Statute Text:
Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code. Forgery. Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.