Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.717 of 2005 =========================================================== Rash Bihari Manjhi, S/O Late Braj Kishore Manjhi, R/O Village-Bundu (Tola- Manjhi,), Police Station- Bundu, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar thru Home Secretary, Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Director General of Police, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. 4. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Danapur, Patna. 5. The Officer-in-Charge, SC & ST Minority Cell, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s with Criminal Miscellaneous No. 32222 of 1999 =========================================================== Rash Bihari Manjhi, S/O Late Braj Kishore Manjhi, R/O Village-Bundu (Tola- Manjhi,), Police Station- Bundu, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand), at present Superintending Engineer (E & M), Katras Project, BCCL. District-Dhanbad. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Sri Ramesh Kumar Singh, Sub Inspector of Police-cum-Officer Incharge, Harijan P.S. Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance : (In CR. WJC No. 717 of 2005) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vindhya Keshri Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh, AC to GA-VIII (In Cr.Misc. No. 32222 of 1999) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vindhya Keshri Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh, AC to GA-VIII =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI CAV JUDGMENT Date: 09-02-2012 (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI) Cr.W.J.C No. 717 of 2005 and Cr.Misc. No. 32222 of 1999 have been filed by the petitioner, Rash Bihari Manjhi alone and accordingly, both have been heard together with the consent of the parties and the same are being disposed of by a common order. 2 2. So far prayer made under Cr.Misc. No. 32222 of 1999 is concerned, petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR followed with investigation of Danapur Harijan P.S. Case No. 12 of 1998 registered under Sections 419, 420, 405, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120(B) of the IPC and Sections 3(1) (IX), 3(2) (VII) of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act while Cr.Writ bearing No. 717 of 2005 has been preferred for quashing of first information report followed with investigation of SC, ST Minorities Cell, Patna Case No.63 of 2005 registered under [STATUTE] , 3(1)(IX), 3(2) (VII) of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. Before coming to submission and adjudication, brief fact of the case has to be narrated. An allegation has been attributed against the petitioner along with others disclosing therein that after obtaining fake caste certificate, the accused persons got themselves admitted in technical education/ colleges, and further they obtained Govt service, promotion etc thereupon. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, first of all Danapur Harijan P.S. Case No. 12 of 1998 was registered against altogether 19 accused persons including the petitioner and investigation commenced. During course of supervision, the Supervising authority 3 pointed out that each accused has obtained fake certificate independently at different occasion, got themselves admitted in technical colleges at different occasion, got employment at different stages, discharged their duty at different places therefore, clubbing of all the accused in one criminal case appears to be deficient one in the eye of law and accordingly, ordered for institution of independent cases. In the aforesaid background Danapur Harijan P.S. Case No. 12 of 1998 was allowed to proceed against Abhaynath Manjhi, Shashi Kumar Gope along with other officials who were involved in granting fake caste certificate in favour of aforesaid two. The investigation has been concluded and charge-sheet has already been submitted against them only. So far petitioner is concerned, he has been separately booked under SC ST Minority Cell, Patna Case No.63/2005 which has subsequently been registered as per direction of the Supervising authority given in Danapur Harijan P.S. Case No.12 of 1998 . 4. The State has filed counter affidavit. During course of hearing, it has been submitted on behalf of State that as per direction of Supervising authority, petitioner’s name subsequently been deleted from the column of accused with regard to Danapur Harijan P.S. Case No. 12 of 1998, therefore the prayer of the petitioner for quashing of Danapur Harijan P.S. Case No. 12 of 1998 does not survive. Now, as 4 the petitioner is not related with Danapur Harijan P.S. Case No.12 of 1998, no cause has accrued to the petitioner with regard thereto nor can petitioner pray before the court for quashing of the same. Also submitted that petitioner knowingly and intentionally did not file relevant papers available on the record of the learned lower court deleting his name as an accused in connection with Danapur Harijan P.S. Case No. 12 of 1998. 5. In likewise manner, it has been submitted that after bifurcation of State, SC, ST Minority Cell, Patna Case No.63/2005 had already been transferred to Jharkhand. Therefore, now no cause subsists within the jurisdiction of Patna High Court nay the petitioner impleaded Government of Jharkhand as a party although the facts were well known to the petitioner, hence this Court ceases to command. The aforesaid events have also elaborately been pleaded in counter affidavit. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, both the petitions as referred above have become infructuous and are accordingly, disposed of. PATNA HIGH COURT The 9th day of February, 2012 Md.Perwez Alam/AFR (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 474

Statute Text:
Section 474 of the Indian Penal Code. Having possession of a document, knowing it to be forged, with intent to use it as genuine; If the document is one of the description mentioned in section 466 of the Indian Penal Code. Whoever has in his possession any document, knowing the same to be forged, and intending that the same shall fraudulently or dishonestly be used as genuine, shall, if the document is one of the description mentioned in section 466 of this Code, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the document is one of the description mentioned in section 467, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description, for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.