Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.7278 of 2010 ====================================================== Dhrambir Prasad Son of Late Prayag Mahto resident of Village Sipah P.S. Deepnagar, District Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Dilip Kumar Son of Late Jitendra Singh, resident of Village Kalyan Bigha P.S. Harnaut, District Nalanda. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 4 20-07-2012 Heard Sri Ramesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ram Prasad Singh, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of Complainant/Opp. Party No. 2. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 10.09.2009, passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bihar Sharif, Nalanda, in Complaint Case No. 1144(C) of 2008. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] . Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order of cognizance and entire criminal proceeding, submits Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7278 of 2010 (4) dt.20-07-2012 2 / 4 2 that while mutation order was passed, petitioner was not posted as ‘Office Clerk’ in the Office of Circle Officer, Harnaut (Nalanda). He submits that subsequent to order of mutation, he joined. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, only allegation against the petitioner has been made that he had not shown the record to the complainant and after vigorous persuasion, he had given photocopy of the application as well as partition chart. On this ground, he has made a prayer for quashing of entire criminal proceeding as well as quashing of order of cognizance. Learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party no.2, while opposing the prayer of the petitioner, has argued that it was a case of deep conspiracy in between the own brother of the petitioner, Brajesh Kumar, who has been named as accused no.1 in complaint petition with petitioner, Dhrambir Prasad as well as Revenue Clerk, Braj Kishore Singh. It was argued that in complaint petition, there is specific allegation that complainant’s own brother (accused no.1), forging signature of other family members in connivance with the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7278 of 2010 (4) dt.20-07-2012 3 / 4 3 officials, has got mutation in his favour. Thereafter, knowing the fact that the complainant was going to obtain loan on the strength of such document, he filed an application on 10.05.2008 under the provision of Right to Information Act. In the application, he applied for the documents and thereafter, he noticed regarding the commission of offences. He further submits that learned Magistrate, after conducting enquiry and after examining the material on record, has passed order of cognizance. There is no illegality in the order. In view of the aforesaid facts as well as perusal of the complaint petition and the impugned order, prima facie, there appears no error in the order of cognizance. The plea whether the petitioner, at the time of mutation, was posted or not, may not be examined by this Court, while hearing a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Nor any reliable document has been placed on record to show that he was not present there. In that view of the matter, it is not a fit case for interference with the order of the court below. However, if so advised, the petitioner may take liberty to raise all points at Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7278 of 2010 (4) dt.20-07-2012 4 / 4 4 appropriate stage alongwith necessary documents. If such petition is filed, learned court below without being prejudiced with this order, may examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The petition stands disposed of. Anay/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 420

Statute Text:
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating and there by dishonestly inducing delivery of property, or the making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.