Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.1896 of 2010 =========================================================== 1. Munakiya Devi W/O Late Satya Narayan Rai R/O Bihari Path,Bigrahpur,P.S.- Jakkanpur,Dist.-Patna. 2. Yamuna Dayal @ Yamuna Prasad @ Jamuna Prasad S/O Late Satya Narayan Rai R/O Bihari Path,Bigrahpur,P.S.-Jakkanpur,Dist.-Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Shri Amarnath Sinha S/O Shri Kedar Nath Sinha R/O C-55 New Patrakar Nagar,Hanuman Nagar,P.S.- Patrakar Nagar,Dist.- Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s with Criminal Miscellaneous No. 18404 of 2010 =========================================================== Keshav Prasad .... .... Petitioner/s Versus State Of Bihar & Anr .... .... Opposite Party/s with Criminal Miscellaneous No. 342 of 2010 =========================================================== 1. Keshav Prasad S/O Late Bhagwat Prasad, Supervisor Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Rishikesh Utranchal R/O Sakti, P.S.- Maharpar, Distt.- Haridwar ( Utra- Khand ) .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Shri Amarnath Sinha S/O Shri Kedar Nath Sinha R/O C-55 New Patrakar Nagar, Hanuman Nagar, P.S.- Patrakar Nagar, Distt.- Patna .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance : (In Cr.Misc. Nos. 1896 of 2010, 18404/2010 and 342/2010 ) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Birendra Narayan Sharma, Adv. For the O. P. N0.2 : Mr. Diwakar Sinha, Adv. For the State : Mr. R.S. Rai, APP =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI CAV JUDGMENT Date: 18-07-2012 Cr. Mics. No. 1896 of 2010 wherein Munakiya 2 Devi and Yamuna Dayal @ Yamuna Prasad @ Jamuna Prasad happen to be petitioners out of whom Munakiya Devi died during pendency of instant petition hence her name has been deleted from the column of the petitioners vide order dated 21.12.2011 as well as Cr. Misc. No. 342 of 2010 filed by petitioner, Keshav Prasad originate from the same Complaint Case No. 991© of 2009 challenging the order dated 21.11.2009 whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance for an offence punishable under [STATUTE] for which they have been summoned. 2. Cr. Misc. No. 18404 of 2010 happens to be filed by Keshaw Prasad against an order dated 17.08.2007 passed by learned lower court in connection with Compliant Case No. 1482© of 2007 taking cognizance of an offence punishable under [STATUTE] and thereby summoning the petitioner along with others. In both the complaint petitions, Amarnath Sinha happens to be complainant who stood figured in all the Cr. Misc. petitions as O.P. No.2. 3. Facts of both the cases are dealt with independently and succinctly. 4. So far, Cr. Misc. No. 1896/2010 and Cr.Misc. No. 342/2010 are concerned both relate with Complaint Case 991©/2009. As per Annexure-1, the complaint petition, accused Keshav Prasad 3 brought the other co-accused at the place of complainant and further disclosed that Munakiya Devi is in need of money therefore, she is ready to sell here land lying at village, Pipra Domanchak @ 92,000/- per Kattha. Keshav Prasad further disclosed that the land is free from litigation as well as encumbrance. After finalization of deal, the complainant O.P. No.2 (Amarnath Sinha) had paid Rs.1,00000/- to Munakiya Devi Devi, Yamuna Dayal, Prabhu Dayal. Again on 23.07.2003 complainant had issued cheque of Rs.2,75000/- which was received by Yamuna Prasad. On 30.11.2003 had issued cheque of Rs.4,00000/- which was received by Prabhu Dayal. On 13.12.2004, Prabhu Dayal further received Rs.40,000/- in cash and so out of total consideration amount appertaining to Rs.13,10,000/- he had already paid Rs. 8,15,000/- and so, he had requested the accused to get the sale deed executed after receiving the rest amount which they deffered for the time being. All of a sudden, he came to know that Munakiya Devi had executed power of attorney in favour of Prabhu Dayal 7 Katthas 10 Dhurs of land out of 46 decimals. On query, the accused persons demanded Rs.1,25000/- per Kattha in stead of agreed amount of Rs.92,000/-. Further, Keshav Prasad had also demanded Rs.2,00000/- as commission. Then submitted that even after receiving the amount appertaining to Rs.8,15,000/- the accused persons intentionally and deliberately adopted such tactics by which the term 4 of agreement got expired with a clear-cut motive to digest the amount. 5. With regard to Cr. Misc. No. 1896/2010, O.P. No.2, Amarnath Sinha virtually, narrated the same incident whatever he narrated in Complaint Case No. 991/2009 in Complaint case No. 1482/2007 on account of which there happens to be inception of Cr.Misc.No. 18404/2010 and Cr.Misc. No. 342/2010. 6. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that for the same cause when at an earlier occasion Complaint Case No.1482C/2007 was already filed by the complainant (O.P. No.2) and the said matter was still being pursued at the hands of O.P. No.2, then in that event subsequent filing of Complaint Case No. 991©/2009 happens to be barred in the background of Section 300 of the Cr.P.C. Not only this, It has further been submitted that from Annexure-7, it is evident that O.P. No.2 had already instituted Title Suit No.142/2009. 7. Furthermore, It has been submitted that the whole narration whatever alleged did not specify that at the time of negotiation there was any sort of fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners. Then, it has been submitted that actually the complainant ( O.P. No.2) could not honour the terms of agreement within the stipulated period so incorporated under deed of agreement failing which the earnest money whatever been paid was subject to forfeiture and only to put upon the petitioners undue pressure, after 5 expiry of the effectiveness of the agreement by efflux of time two complaint petitions at diff

Applicable IPC Section: 467

Statute Text:
Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code. Forgery of a valuable security, will or authority to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive any money, etc. Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.