Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7100 of 2011 (2) dt.25-04-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.7100 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Badare Alam 2. Nazare Alam 3. Sadare Alam, all sons of Md. Atiullah, all resident of Village Jhitkahia, P.S. Dhaka, District- East Champaran. 4. Md. Jiquarullah, son of Md. Saleem, resident of Village-Pipra Bazid, P.S. Dhaka, District- East Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Sheikh Safiullah, son of late Hazi Sheikh Yar Mohammad, resident of Village_Jhitkahia, P.S. Dhaka, District- East Champaran. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. A.K. Jha, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 25-04-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.1.2011 passed in Cr. Revision No.309 of 2010 by the learned Sessions Judge, East Champaran at Motihari by which he has dismissed the revision application and affirmed the order dated 7.10.2010 passed in Complaint Case No.C-1681 of 2010, Tr. No. 4151 of 2010 by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sadar, Motihari by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioners under [STATUTE] . According to the complaint petition it appears that Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7100 of 2011 (2) dt.25-04-2012 petitioner no.3, Sadare Alam had filed a criminal case and in that case the court below has taken cognizance. In the present complaint petition it has been stated that they have committed a forgery and impersonated a person and thereby created Bakshishnama with regard to Khata No. 329, 52, 250, area 1 Katha 10 dhurs. It has been claimed that the document that has been created by petitioner no.1 is completely forged document with an intention to grab his property. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that present case is nothing but a civil dispute and earlier to this case he has filed a case bearing Complaint Case No.C-1373 of 2009. The court below has considered the materials on record and has taken cognizance against the petitioners which has been affirmed by the revisional court. I do not find any error in the impugned order. This application is accordingly dismissed. Vinay/- (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.