Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.20651 of 2011 ====================================================== Md. Alauddin Rayeen, son of late Fazle Karim Rayeen, resident of Mohalla - Purani Bazar, Police Station - Ram Nagar, District -West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Murtaza Hussain, son of Idrish, resident of village Babui Tola, P.S. – Bagaha, District - West Champaran. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3 21-11-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Md. Fahimuddin, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. In the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of entire criminal prosecution in Trial No. 1639 of 2002, arising out of Bagaha P.S. Case No. 217 of 1999 registered for the offence under [STATUTE] . The prayer for quashing of criminal prosecution has been made only on the ground of delay in conclusion of the trial. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case though F.I.R. was lodged and Police after investigation had submitted final report, the learned Magistrate differing with the Police report has passed order of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20651 of 2011 (3) dt.21-11-2012 2/3 cognizance. He submits that dispute was purely civil in nature and colour of criminal offence was given. He informs the court that in this case after order of cognizance and framing of charge only one witness was examined, that too, in the year 2007, and thereafter, till date, no witness has been produced by the prosecution. He submits that this fact demonstrates that the prosecution is only lingering the matter without any reason. According to learned counsel for the petitioner this is the ground for quashing of entire criminal prosecution. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that instead of quashing the prosecution this court can direct for expeditious disposal of the case. Keeping in view the fact that F.I.R. in this case was lodged in the year 1999, in view of law laid down by seven Judges bench of the Apex Court in a case reported in (2002) 4 Supreme Court Cases 578 (P. RAMACHANDRA RAO Versus STATE OF KARNATAKA) it would be difficult for this court in interfering with the prosecution solely on the ground of delay. However, in the light of the observation of the Apex Court, it would be desirable to direct the court below as well as the prosecution to take all steps so that, case may come to its Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20651 of 2011 (3) dt.21-11-2012 3/3 logical end without unnecessary delay. Keeping in view the fact that F.I.R. was lodged in the year 1999, it would be appropriate to direct the court below to conclude the trial preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. With above observation and direction the petition stands disposed of. Praful/- (Rakesh Kumar, 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.