Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.39418 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. Indrajit Prasad Singh @ Indrajit Kumar @ Mantoo son of late Ranjit Singh. 2. Ram Mohan Prasad son of late Kashi Nath Prasad, Resident of Mohalla Paimawapur, Barh, P.S. Barh, District Patna. 3. Janardan Ram son of Ramesh Ram 4. Mathura Ram son of Bijendra Ram 5. Tauli Ram son of late Dudh Nath Ram 6. Manoj Ram son of late Ratan Ram. All residents of village Ekdanga, P.S. Belchhi, District Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Sarvesh Kumar Singh @ Pannaji son of late Binay Kumar Singh, resident of village Ekdanga, P.S. Belchhi, District Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 5 04-04-2012 Heard Shri Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as Shri B.N.P. Singh, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of the informant/opposite party no.2. Six petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 10.12.2007 passed by Shri A.K. Srivastava, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate I/C A.C.J.M., Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39418 of 2008 (5) dt.04-04-2012 2 / 3 2 Barh in Barh P.S. Case No.499 of 2006. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence under [STATUTE] . Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation primarily made in the F.I.R. pertains to civil dispute. He further submits that the land in question was in the name of petitioners themselves and as such there was no question for application of any of the offences as alleged by the informant. Shri B.N.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/opposite party no.2 disputes the fact as well as disputes genuineness of Annexure-2 to the petition. Be that as it may, the fact remains that after registering F.I.R., police investigated the case and thereafter, submitted charge sheet. The learned Magistrate, on the basis of materials available on record in the case diary, has passed the order of cognizance. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39418 of 2008 (5) dt.04-04-2012 3 / 3 3 At this stage, it would not be appropriate for this Court to go into such detail. The points, which have been raised in the petition, can be raised by the petitioners at appropriate stage. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate petition at appropriate stage. If such petition is filed, the court expects that the learned court below, without being prejudiced with this order, may examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. In view of disposal of the present petition, the interim order of stay dated 25.7.2011 stands automatically vacated. N.H./- (Rakesh Kumar, 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.