Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51584 of 2006 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.51584 of 2006 =========================================================== 1.Rajiv Kumar Gupta @ Rajiv Kumar 2.Sandeep Kumar Gupta @ Parmendar Prasad Gupta Both sons of Purendra Prasad Gupta, resident of village-Uda-Kishanganj, District- Madhepura. 3.Yadunandan Yadav S/O late Panchit Yadav, R/O vill.-Gorpar, P.S.-Uda Kishunganj, District-Madhepura .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.Ravish Prasad S/O Jagdish Prasad, resident of village-Dighra, P.S.-Ghailarh, District-Madhepura .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Thakur Mr.Ravi Ranjan For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr.Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar-3 For the State: Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay.. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH CAV JUDGMENT The petitioners have challenged the order dated 24.8.2006 passed in Cr. Revision No.53 of 2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Madhepura whereby he has rejected the revision application of the petitioners against the order dated 3.3.2006 passed by Sri R.Kumar, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhepura in Complaint Case No.1059 of 2005 whereby he summoned the petitioners in order to face trial. 2. The fact of the case lies in a narrow compass. The complainant has alleged that her husband, who died in the year 1998, had purchased certain pieces of land during his life time in the name of the complainant through registered sale deed for consideration. She came in possession of the land and Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51584 of 2006 2. the rent receipts were being issued in her name. From the land of the complainant the petitioners forcibly cut the standing Shisham trees. When the complainant raised protest the petitioner no.1 told the complainant that he has got the land in question transferred in his name through a forged registered sale deed and now she has no right over the land. The complainant subsequently on enquiry came to know that the accused persons in conspiracy to each other fraudulently prepared a fake power of attorney of the complainant in the name of co-accused Pankaj Kumar and on the strength of forged power of attorney two sale deeds being deed no.6459 of 2001 and deed no.6460 of 2001 were executed by co-accused Pankaj Kumar in favour of petitioner no.2 and 1 respectively. In both the deeds recitals were made that co-accused Pankaj Kumar was given power of attorney by the complainant. The complainant alleges that she had never executed any power of attorney in favour of Pankaj Kumar. It is relevant to note it here that the petitioners are none else but the nephews (brother’s son) of the complaint. The co-accused Pankaj Kumar is said to be a close agnate of the petitioners. The allegation is that all the accused persons were in know of the fact that the land in question, detail of which has been given in the plaint belongs to the complainant but in order to deprive her from ownership of the land they hatched up a conspiracy and co-accused Pankaj Kumar got the land transferred in the name of the petitioners. 3. Mr.Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura and the order passed by the revisional court are bad in law. The complainant had Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51584 of 2006 3. executed a power of attorney in favour of co-accused Pankaj Kumar only after receiving consideration amount and on the basis of said power of attorney, co- accused Pankaj Kumar executed the two deeds in question dated7.11.2001 in favour of own nephews of the complainant namely, Sanjeev Kumar Gupta and Rajeev Kumar Gupta (the petitioners). After purchase of the said land, the same was mutated in the name of the purchasers and rent receipts are being issued in their name. It is further submitted that even as per the complaint no case is made out against the petitioners as they were bona fide purchasers and, as such, if the transaction made by co-accused Pankaj Kumar was fraudulent they would be victim and not the accused. Whether power of attorney in question was legal or valid can only be adjudicated in a proper civil proceeding and allowing the present prosecution to continue would he an abuse of the process of court. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submits that there is no illegality in the orders passed by the court below. The allegation made in the complaint clearly attracts the ingredients of the offence punishable under [STATUTE] . In the present case, admittedly the petitioners were not strangers to the complainant. They are her own nephews. They were well aware of the fact that the land in question belongs to the complainant. The co-accused Pankaj Kumar is also a close agnate of the petitioners. They conspired together and on the strength of a forged power of attorney co-accused Pankaj Kumar transferred the pieces of land of the complainant in the name of the petitioners. He further submits that in a given case a civil suit as also a Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51584 of 2006 4. criminal proceeding would be maintainable. They can run simultaneously. The result in one proceeding would not be binding on the court in another proceeding. He further submits that co-accused Pankaj Kumar who executed the sale deeds fraudulently was a man set up by the petitioners knowingly and deliberately. The complainant had never executed any power of attorney in his favour. The petitioners were aware of this fact still they conspired together and got the sale deed executed in their favour. I must now look to the provisions under which a prima facie case is said to have bee

Applicable IPC Section: 468

Statute Text:
Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Forgery for the purpose of cheating. Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.