Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10744 of 2011 (4) dt.02-08-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.10744 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Mahesh Kumar Mohan S/O Sri Ram Gulam Prasad Resident Of Village- Parthu, P.S.- Ekangarsarai, District- Nalanda, At Present Assistant Teacher, Mahanth Keshav Das, High School, Bharthu, P.S.- Ghoshi, District- Jehanabad .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Harish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Upadhyay, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 4 02-08-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In this case petitioner is challenging the order dated 4th February 2011 arising from Ghoshi P.S.Case No. 255 of 2009 for the offence [STATUTE] the FIR it appears that the money was allotted for construction of a building but it appears that the son of the petitioner was given the contract for the construction but in stead of making the construction, allegation has been made that he misappropriated the fund. From the FIR it appears that the son got the contract as his father prevailed upon the Principal. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10744 of 2011 (4) dt.02-08-2012 Counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations are completely bald and do not constitute any offence as the work was allotted on the basis of lowest quotation. It is also submitted that even the informant has already been made accused in the present case and it was found that he himself was involved in this misappropriation and swindling of the Government fund. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention towards the minutes of the proceeding by which the contract was given to the son of petitioner who had quoted the lowest rate in order to show that the allegation made against the petitioner is baseless. The defence which has been raised through Annexure-3 cannot be seen at this stage. However, petitioner will be at liberty to raise all the defence at the appropriate stage of trial. With this observation this petition is dismissed. Jay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 465

Statute Text:
Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code. Forgery. Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.