Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.44576 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Krishna Singh, S/o Shri Gyan Chand Singh, Asstt. Engineer, National Building Construction Corporation, Noida, Gaziabad (U.P.) 2. Shanti Devi, W/o Shri Krishna Singh Both residents of Village, P.O. & P.S. - Kinjar, District -Jehanabad 3. Mahendra Pratap Singh @ Mahendra Prasad Singh, S/o Late Faujdar Singh, Sub Inspector Of Police, Ramgarh, District - Hazaribagh, Resident Of Village & P.O. - Hisampur, P.S. - Jaunpur, District - Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh 4. Yogendra Prasad Mehta, S/o Shri Ram Narayan Singh, resident of Village - Makdumpur, P.O. & P.S. Arwal, District - Jehanabad .... .... Petitioners Versus The Central Bureau Of Investigation, SPE, Patna .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.18385 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Shri Babban Prasad Singh, Son of Shri Ram Narain Singh. 2. Shri Ram Narayan Singh, Son of Late Ramawtar Singh. 3. Shri Surendra Singh, Son of Shri Devanand Singh. 4. Shri Ramvijay Singh, Son of Shri Keshwar Singh. 5. Shri Rajendra Singh, Son of Ram Prit Singh. (All resident of village – Makdumpur, P.O. & P.S. – Arwal, District – Jehanabad). 6. Shri Kashi Nath Singh, Jr. Engineer, N.B.C.C., Durgapur, West Bengal, Son of Shri Ram Briksh Singh, Resident of Sauown, P.S. – Paliganj, District – Patna. .... .... Petitioners Versus The Central Bureau of Investigation, SPE, Patna .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : (In Cr.Misc. No.44576 of 2009) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prashant Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Amit Prakash, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, S.C. for C.B.I. (In Cr.Misc. No.18385 of 2009) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prashant Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Amit Prakash, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, S.C. for C.B.I. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.44576 of 2009 (8) dt.17-07-2012 2 / 29 2 8 17-07-2012 Both the aforesaid cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Before proceeding with the matter, it is relevant to incorporate that the aforesaid petitions were earlier heard and on 28.6.2012, in view of the fact that in the present case F.I.R. was lodged long back in the year 1988, this court directed for listing both the cases under the heading “For Orders” on 9th July, 2012, so that, Court may contemplate to finally hear and dispose of the matter under the heading “For Orders”. Earlier, Smt. Soni Srivastava, learned counsel, was appearing on behalf of petitioners in both the cases. However, on 9th July, 2012, an unusual prayer was made by one Sri Pawan Kumar Singh, learned Advocate, for transferring the case to any other court. This Court passed a detailed order on 13.7.2012, which is reproduced hereinbelow:- “Both the cases have been taken together. Cr. Misc. No. 44576 of 2009 was taken up for hearing on the point of admission on 03.04.2012. The present petition was filed by four petitioners, who had authorized Smt. Soni Shrivastava and Sri Amit Prakash, learned counsel to represent their case before this Court. On 03.04.2012, the matter was heard. A plea was taken by learned counsel for the petitioners that trial has inordinately delayed. On query, it was intimated by Sri Bipin Kumar Sinha, learned Standing Counsel for C.B.I. that on the date, the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Patna was vacant. Keeping in view the fact that case was an old one, this Court directed the Registrar General of this Court to submit report on the fact “as to whether the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. Patna is vacant or not. If it Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.44576 of 2009 (8) dt.17-07-2012 3 / 29 3 is vacant, within what time, power is going to be delegated for conducting C.B.I. Cases by the learned Magistrate, where the case is pending”. After report was received from the office of the Registrar General, the matter was again placed before this Court on 23.04.2012. On that date, a prayer was made by learned counsel for the petitioners for granting accommodation and it was directed to list this case after four weeks. Since power was not delegated till that date for conducting C.B.I. Cases, this Court directed the Registrar General to place on record further progress in respect of appointment of Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. Patna. Thereafter , again report was placed by the Registrar General, whereby it was evident that one Sri Sunil Kumar no.2, Judicial Magistrate, Patna was nominated as Presiding Officer as Special Judicial Magistrate Court , C.B.I. Patna as per Government Notification. Again on 26.06.2012, the case was got adjourned as per instance of the petitioners and it was directed to be listed on the next date. On 28.06.2012 , Smt. Soni Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners informed the Court that in Cr.Misc.No.44576 of 2009 , petitioners had filed Interlocutory Application i.e. I.A. No.795 of 2012, which was not on record and, as such, office was directed to locate the same and place it on record. Keeping in view the fact that the case was pending since long , this Court directed for listing the case under the heading “For Orders” on 9th July,2012, so that Court may contemplate to finally hear and dispose of the matter under the same heading. On 9th July, 2012, when the case was taken up, one another counsel, namely, Sri Pawan Kumar Singh appeared and informed the Court that after obtaining „no objection‟ from earlier appearing counsel, he has filed fresh Vakalatnama. He further made a prayer for transferring the case to any other Court. On query by the Court regarding the reason for such prayer, it was replied that I (Rakesh Kumar, J) was earlier C.B.I. Counsel. On that date w

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.