Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2651 of 2011 (3) dt.05-03-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.2651 of 2011 ====================================================== Sikendra Kumar @ Rishideo .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dinesh Prasad Verma, Adv. For the State : Mr. M.N.Jha, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 3 05-03-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is challenging the order dated 4th November, 2010 taking cognizance for offences under [STATUTE] . In the present case, there is allegation of committing forgery. It is submitted that the petitioner himself submitted that it does not bear the signature of petitioner as he has not signed which cannot be looked into at this stage as F.I.R. states appointment made in second time is of other person. Disputed question of fact and defence of petitioner cannot be looked into. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However liberty is given to the petitioner to take all these points at the time of framing of charge. Jay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J) Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2651 of 2011 (3) dt.05-03-2012

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.