Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.38903 of 2010 ====================================================== Madheshwar Prasad Singh, son of late Ram Tawakal Singh, resident at Bihea Road, Piro, P.S. Piro, Distt. Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhavendra Choubey with Mr. Pramod Pandey, Advocates For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. J.K. Sing No.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN) 2 19-01-2012 The present petition has been filed for quashing the proceeding in Agrer P.S. Case No. 123 of 1991, G.R. No. 378 of 1991 registered under [STATUTE] . In course of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention to the order of this Court passed on 07.12.2006 in Cr. Misc. No. 15861 of 2006 (Annexure-1) which was disposed of remanding the matter to the court below with a direction to examine the matter with reference to the records of the case and if necessary, the records of the Co-operative Society. He then refers to the order dated 07.05.2007 (Annexure-5) passed by the learned Trial Court pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court by which the discharge petition was rejected, which has 2 statedly been passed in the absence of the records of the Society. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that rejection of his discharge petition was unjustified and accordingly, the trial which is being proceeded with after framing of charges is not sustainable in law. I find however, that the aforesaid order dated 07.05.2007 passed by the learned Trial Court has already been made the subject matter of challenge in Cr. Misc. No. 25868 of 2007 which already stands dismissed by order dated 18.02.2008 passed by this Court (Annexure-1/1). In the above view of the matter and considering that the objection now been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has already been taken note of while disposing of Cr. Misc. No. 25868 of 2007, no indulgence can be granted to the petitioner particularly at this stage when the trial is already ongoing after framing of charges. Learned counsel for the State appears and has been heard. In the result, the application stands dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner will be at liberty to raise all the points in course of the trial as may be available to him in accordance with law. Anjani /- (Vikash Jain, J)

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.