Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 26686 of 2009 ====================================================== Anjani Kumar, Son of Sri Bhubneshwar Sharma, the then Sub-Post Master Vidyut Parishad Post Office, Patna, presently posted as Sub –Post Master Central Revenue Building Post Office, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Union of India, through the Chief Post Master, Patna G.P.O., Patna-1 3. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Patna Division, Patna-800004. 4. Radha Govind Mahto, Son of Late Tito Mahto, Resident of Ashiana Nagar, Nav Vikash Colony, P.O.-Ashiyana Nagar, P.S.- Shashtri Nagar, Patna, District-Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gopal Govind Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. B. Ram, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL ORDER 04. 18.04.2012 The petitioner seeks quashing of entire proceeding including the order dated 28.02.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna by which he has taken cognizance under [STATUTE] against the petitioner and others in Complaint Case No. 86(C) of 2007. The case of the Complainant is that Mrs. Sachi Banerjee contacted Hanuman Prasad Sahi and Radha Govind Mahto in the year 2000 for investing the money in the Post-office at which they invested some money. The said Mrs. Sachi Banerjee on maturity of the amount of KVP standing in the name of Hanuman Prasad Sahi took his signature for investment but when he demanded the papers for the same she avoided him. The Assistant Post Master, Vidhyut Parishad, Post-office, Patna also avoided him initially but later on conceded that he had Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26686 of 2009 (4) dt.18-04-2012 2 given all the money to the agent Mrs. Sachi Banerjee without the permission of Hanuman Prasad Sahi. The said Mrs. Sachi Banerjee also contacted the Complainant and his wife Urmil Devi in the year 2003 and 2004 for investing in some schemes in the Ashiana Nagar Post-office and they invested certain money. Later accused Mrs. Sachi Banerjee allegedly took some money from him in cash but did not give her receipt in its regard and also took all the papers from him for reinvestment. In 2006 when the Complainant was in need of money he contacted Mrs. Sachi Banerjee but she avoided him so he contacted Assistant Post Master, Ashiana Nagar Post-office and learnt that Mrs. Sachi Banerjee had withdrawn the maximum money form the Complainant’s Post-office Account. He therefore alleged that the Post-office officials and the agent had cheated the Complainant and Hanuman Prasad Sahi of their lawful money. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he was the Post Master of Vidhyut Parishad, Post-office, Patna and there is allegation that he in connivance with Mrs. Sachi Banerjee had misappropriated Hanuman Prasad Shahi’s money and paid it to Mrs. Sachi Banerjee without any authority. However, the said Hanuman Prasad Sahi has not made any complaint against the petitioner nor is there any supporting documentary proof in regard to the alleged deposit by Hanuman Prasad Sahi and thus the present case is nothing but a nullity based on oral allegations. On the last occasion notices were issued to the Opposite Party No. 4 even through Lawyer in the Court below but despite service of notice he has not chosen to appear before Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26686 of 2009 (4) dt.18-04-2012 3 this Court. Having gone though the complaint petition, I find that there is no allegation against the petitioner with regard to any false representation, misappropriation or cheating in regard to the Complainant and, therefore, I am inclined to agree with the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner. In view of such, the application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order dated 28.02.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 86(C) of 2007 is, hereby, set aside so far as it relates to the petitioner. Vikash/- (Anjana Prakash, 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.