Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.38903 of 2010 ====================================================== Madheshwar Prasad Singh, son of late Ram Tawakal Singh, resident at Bihea Road, Piro, P.S. Piro, Distt. Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhavendra Choubey with Mr. Pramod Pandey, Advocates For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. J.K. Sing No.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN) 2 19-01-2012 The present petition has been filed for quashing the proceeding in Agrer P.S. Case No. 123 of 1991, G.R. No. 378 of 1991 registered under [STATUTE] . In course of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention to the order of this Court passed on 07.12.2006 in Cr. Misc. No. 15861 of 2006 (Annexure-1) which was disposed of remanding the matter to the court below with a direction to examine the matter with reference to the records of the case and if necessary, the records of the Co-operative Society. He then refers to the order dated 07.05.2007 (Annexure-5) passed by the learned Trial Court pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court by which the discharge petition was rejected, which has 2 statedly been passed in the absence of the records of the Society. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that rejection of his discharge petition was unjustified and accordingly, the trial which is being proceeded with after framing of charges is not sustainable in law. I find however, that the aforesaid order dated 07.05.2007 passed by the learned Trial Court has already been made the subject matter of challenge in Cr. Misc. No. 25868 of 2007 which already stands dismissed by order dated 18.02.2008 passed by this Court (Annexure-1/1). In the above view of the matter and considering that the objection now been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has already been taken note of while disposing of Cr. Misc. No. 25868 of 2007, no indulgence can be granted to the petitioner particularly at this stage when the trial is already ongoing after framing of charges. Learned counsel for the State appears and has been heard. In the result, the application stands dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner will be at liberty to raise all the points in course of the trial as may be available to him in accordance with law. Anjani /- (Vikash Jain, J)

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.