IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11767 of 2006 1. UPENDRA MANDAL Son of Late Sarangi Mandal 2. YASHODA DEVI, Wife of Sri Upendra Mandal 3. MD. ISHTEKHAR, Son of Md. Jabir All resident of village – Jamgaon, P.S. Jagdishpur, District - Bhagalpur 4. BIHARI MANDAL, Son of , resident of village – Dogacchi, P.S. Nathnagar, District – Bhagalpur. ….. Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MOST. SULESHWARI DEVI, Wife of Late Samli Mandal, resident of village – Kundi Jamgaon, P.S. – Jagdishpur, District – Bhagalpur. ….. Opp. Partiess. ----------- 08/ 20.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 and the learned APP for the State. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order taking cognizance dated 28.7.2003 in Complaint Case No. C-384 of 2001 under Sections 420, 417, 467, 468, 465, 504/34 of the IPC. Submission on behalf of the petitioners is that it is primarily a civil dispute and the sale deed had been duly executed after payment of consideration and the present case has been filed to pressurize these petitioners. The continuous of the proceeding will be an abuse of the process of the Court. Learned counsel representing O.P. No. 2 submits that from the very narration in the complaint it will be clear that these petitioners have taken advantage of the fact that the O.P. No. 2 is an illiterate old woman. This version has been accepted which has been narrated in the complaint and the complainant has been fraudulently thrown out from her house by the illegal conduct of these petitioners. The ingredients of the offence are made out and it is not a civil dispute. It is also submitted that a false affidavit has been filed in the - 2 - court below stating that a compromise has been reached and the complaint should be dismissed. This was great misconduct on the part of the petitioners which should not ignored be and it disentitles them from any relief from this Court. So far as the statements above are concerned, it is not for this Court to take cognizance of it, but it is for the court to consider as to what steps have to be taken against these petitioners for having filed forged and fabricated document. But in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. DKS/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)