Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.42717 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Md.Sahabuddin @ Sahabuddin 2. Sanowar @ Sk. Sanowar 3. Md. Moinuddin @ Sk. Mangloo 4. Manowar @ Sk. Manowar, Sons of late Safique Rehman 5. Sk. Kamruzzama son of late Usman 6. Md. Baddiuzzama @ Baddiuzzama son of late Usman, All resident of village Barsauni, P.S. Sadar, District Purnea. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Md. Khalikur Rehman son of late Muzibur Rehman, resident of village Barsauni, P.S. Sadar, District Purnea. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3 21-03-2012 Heard Shri Sanjeev Kumar No.1, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ram Chandra Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of part of the order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Purnea in Cr. Revision No.36 of 2009. The petitioners, after the order of cognizance dated 3.12.2008, preferred Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42717 of 2009 (3) dt.21-03-2012 2 / 4 2 revision for setting aside the order of cognizance. The learned Magistrate, in Complaint Case No.2401 of 2008, Trial No.2779 of 2009, after conducting enquiry, had taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] . The revisional court did not interfere with the order of cognizance, but he clarified that incorrectly instead of summoning the accused persons under [STATUTE] , the accused persons were summoned for offence under [STATUTE] . Learned revisional court observed that in view of the facts and evidences, [STATUTE] was applicable. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that revisional court had committed gross error by observing for application of [STATUTE] . He submits that evidence on record primarily Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42717 of 2009 (3) dt.21-03-2012 3 / 4 3 does not disclose commission of offence under [STATUTE] . Learned counsel for the petitioners are not disputing or alleging any error in the order of cognizance for offence under [STATUTE] . Be that as it may, which section is required to be applied, is dependent on the basis of evidence brought on record. Even though the revisional court has passed the order observing for application of [STATUTE] , if there is no evidence or material on record to prima facie disclosing commission of offence under [STATUTE] , there is no possibility for framing of charge under [STATUTE] . At the moment, the court is of the opinion that the petitioners may not be allowed to question the order of revisional court on this very point. This point is left open to be considered at appropriate stage Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42717 of 2009 (3) dt.21-03-2012 4 / 4 4 i.e. at the stage of charge. I do not find any ground for interference with the impugned order. It is made clear that at the time of charge, the learned court below, after going through the material on record, may pass appropriate order. The petition stands disposed of. N.H./- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 423

Statute Text:
Section 423 of the Indian Penal Code. Fraudulent execution of deed of transfer containing a false statement of consideration. Whoever dishonestly or fraudulently signs, executes or becomes a party to any deed or instrument which purports to transfer or subject to any charge any property, or any interest therein, and which contains any false statement relating to the consideration for such transfer or charge, or relating to the person or persons for whose use or benefit it is really intended to operate, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.