Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36677 of 2011 (2) dt.19-07-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.36677 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Shyam Nandan Yadav S/O Late Ram Prasad Mandal R/O Village- Chikni Phulwaha, Rai Tola, Police Station- Ghamaria, District- Madhepura 2. Upendra Narayan Rai S/O Late Thakur Rai R/O Village- Chikni Phulwaha, Rai Tola, Police Station- Ghamaria, District- Madhepura 3. Surendra Narayan Rai S/O Late Tahkur Rai R/O Village- Chikni Phulwaha, Rai Tola, Police Station- Ghamaria, District- Madhepura 4. Shivdhar Yadav S/O Late Hetu Yadav R/O Village- Chikni Phulwaha, Rai Tola, Police Station- Ghamaria, District- Madhepura 5. Rajendra Yadav S/O Late Hetu Yadav R/O Village- Chikni Phulwaha, Rai Tola, Police Station- Ghamaria, District- Madhepura 6. Niranjan Yadav S/O Late Hetu Yadav R/O Village- Chikni Phulwaha, Rai Tola, Police Station- Ghamaria, District- Madhepura 7. Anant Lal Yadav S/O Late Hetu Yadav R/O Village- Chikni Phulwaha, Rai Tola, Police Station- Ghamaria, District- Madhepura .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Lakshmi Narayan Rai S/O Late Mahtap Das R/O Village- Chikni Phulwaha, Rai Tola, Police Station- Ghamaria, District- Madhepura .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bidhanesh Misra, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Tanuja Mishra, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 19-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. This application has been filed for quashing the First Information Report of Gamharia P.S. Case No.61 of 2011 registered under [STATUTE] . From the record it appears that two orders are in market i.e. order dated 16.9.2003 and 8.9.2004. One order is Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36677 of 2011 (2) dt.19-07-2012 with petitioner and other is with opposite party arising from same case passed in a proceeding under Section 106 of the Bihar Tenancy Act. If two orders for same case and same date are there in the market arising from the same court then certainly one order must have been forged by either party. At this stage it is very difficult for this Court to interfere with the First Information Report and the police investigation as it would amount to giving shelter to illegal action of the person. However, the petitioner will have liberty to approach before the appropriate forum if same goes against him. With the aforesaid observation this application is dismissed. Vinay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 467

Statute Text:
Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code. Forgery of a valuable security, will or authority to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive any money, etc. Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.