Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.24401 of 2009 ====================================================== Ramkrishna Bhagat, Son of Late Bulari Bhagat, resident of Mohalla- South Mandiri, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S. Budha Colony, District-Patna .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Dharamshila Devi, wife of Late Ramesh Prasad Singh, resident of Village- Rasilchak, P.S. Punpun, District-Patna, also Mohalla Bichili Gali, Gola Road, Danapur, P.S. Danapur, District-Patna, at present resident of Village-Sadikpur, Rukunpura, P.S. Danapur, District-Patna .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER ------------------ 4 06-04-2012 Heard Sri Manoranjan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner , Sri ( Dr.) Mayanand Jha, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and Sri Shyam Kishore Sinha, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of the Complainant/ Opp.Party no.2. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order of cognizance, which was passed long back on 07.06.2007 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna . By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] in Complaint Case no.528( C) of 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant almost in similar circumstances had filed a civil Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24401 of 2009 (4) dt.06-04-2012 2 / 3 2 suit , which is pending in the court of civil jurisdiction. Short fact of the case is that the complainant filed a complaint alleging therein that Arvind Kumar and Alok Kumar by committing fraud had got prepared a power of attorney and on the strength of said power of attorney, they had transferred several lands of the complainant through eleven registered sale deeds. Initially on the basis of said power of attorney, the accused Arvind Kumar had executed four sale deeds in favour of petitioner, who is father of accused no.1/ Arvind Kumar and three other close relatives of Arvind Kumar and subsequently also sale deeds were prepared. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that some of the persons, in whose favour sale deeds were executed, were made accused, had approached this Court for quashing of the order and in some cases order of cognizance were set aside. Be that as it may, fact remains that specific allegation has been made against Arvind Kumar, who is son of the petitioner, who on the strength of forged power of attorney had transferred lands through registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner. I do not find any ground to interfere with the order of cognizance. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. It is Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24401 of 2009 (4) dt.06-04-2012 3 / 3 3 desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the matter expeditiously, so that the case may come to its logical end without unnecessary delay. NKS/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 423

Statute Text:
Section 423 of the Indian Penal Code. Fraudulent execution of deed of transfer containing a false statement of consideration. Whoever dishonestly or fraudulently signs, executes or becomes a party to any deed or instrument which purports to transfer or subject to any charge any property, or any interest therein, and which contains any false statement relating to the consideration for such transfer or charge, or relating to the person or persons for whose use or benefit it is really intended to operate, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.