Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.27123 of 2010 Jai Narayan Choudhary, Advocate, son of late baleshwar Choudhary, Advocate, Civil Court, Samastipur, resident of Mohalla Kashipur, P.S. Samastipur (T) District, Samastipur ………….petitioner. Versus State of Bihar ………………………..opposite party. ------------- For the petitioner: Mr. Vavesh Kumar, Advocate. For the State: Mr. Satya Nand Shukla, A.P.P. ------------ 2 10.01.2012 The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.5.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur in Samastipur Town (M) P.S. Case No. 572 of 2006 by which cognizance has been taken under [STATUTE] . It appears that on Sanjay Rai filed an application on 16.11.2006 in Janta Darbar to the effect that Dev Narayan Yadav had fraudulently withdrew some amount from the Land Acquisition Department , Samastipur and misappropriated the same through a forged account. On that basis an inquiry was conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer, Samastipur, who during the inquiry found the allegation true and lodged the first information report against the petitioner Dev Narayan Rai and his wife Sakunti Devi. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigating agency has incorporated the name of the petitioner mechanically as the petitioner was in no way involved in the offence. This is apparent, he submits, from the very fact that the informant has requested for action to be taken only against Dev Narayan Yadav and Sakunti Devi and not against the petitioner. 2 The written report dated 16.11.2006 before the Officer In- charge itself shows that the only averment with regard to the petitioner is that he has identified Tiliya Devi in whose name the account payee cheque has been issued, in the capacity of a practicing advocate. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his case is squarely covered in terms of the decision reported in A I R 1972 SC 2598 (Hiralal v Delhi Administration) wherein it has been observed as follows:- “Admittedly, the appellant has neither impersonated nor committed any forgery. The real charge against him is that of conspiracy under S. 120- B I.P.C. But there is no prima facie evidence in respect of this charge. The documentary evidence only shows that the appellant made applications on behalf of the other accused, that he filed his vakalatnamas and that he identified them as the real claimants. It is well known that the main income of many lawyers in the District Courts is derived from the work of identifying persons and sureties in the Courts. The other accused must have told the appellant that they were the real claimants. He believed them and agreed to act for them. It seems to us that he did nothing beyond what a lawyer is authorized to do in a Court of law. There is no evidence to suggest that he had previous knowledge of the fact that the accused were not the rightful claimants. Again, there is no evidence whatsoever that 3 there was any concert between him and the other accused antecedent to the filing of the applications and vakalatnamas in court by him. In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that there is prima facie evidence for the offence of conspiracy against him.” Learned counsel for the State appears and has been heard. He has however not been able to point out any specific allegation raised against the petitioner save and except as contained in the informant’s written report to the effect that the petitioner, an advocate, has identified Tiliya Devi. He has not been able to bring on record any material to suggest any complicity of the petitioner or that he had previous knowledge that the payee was not the rightful claimant. Considering the fact that the only allegation against the petitioner is of identification of Tiliya Devi and in view of the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Hiralal v. Delhi Administration (supra), this court is of the view that the order taking cognizance against the petitioner cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. The application accordingly stands allowed. M.Rahman ( Vikash Jain, J)

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.