IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.759 of 2008 RAM PRASAD SHARMA, SON OF CHOKAT SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SUKSENWA MISHRA, P.S. KATEYAN, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DUJIYA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF LATE ACHUTANAND @ TENA SHARMA, WIFE OF BACHAN SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SUKSENWA MISHRA, P.S. KATEYAN, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ. ---- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 5 7.4.2010 Heard the parties. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 9.10.2007 by which the Court has taken cognizance under Sections 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 1248 of 2006 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gopalganj. The short facts of the case are that a complaint had been filed alleging therein that the petitioner has forged the sale deed dated 22.9.1983 as the vendor of the said sale deed, who is the father of the complainant/opposite party no. 3 had died on 9.3.1980 and as such he could not have executed the sale deed in favour of the accused petitioner. The complainant also filed Title Suit No. 272 of 2000 in the Court of the Sub-Judge I, Gopalganj which was decreed in favour of the opposite party no. 3. Against the judgment passed in Title Suit No. 272 of 2000 the petitioner filed Title Appeal No. 38 of 2006. The complainant filed an application under Section 4 C of the Consolidation Act in the said Title Appeal submitting that the appeal had abated on the ground that the consolidation proceedings were pending with 2 respect to the village where the suit lands are situated. The petitioner took a plea that the Title Suit filed on behalf of the complainant would also abate in view of the fact that the consolidation proceeding had already commended on the date on which the suit was filed. The Appellate Court allowed the plea of the petitioner and held that both the suit and the appeal had abated. Against the order of the Appellate Court, the complainant filed Civil Revision No. 936 of 2007 which was dismissed on 8.2.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the result is that at present the petitioner holds the valid sale deed and unless the sale deed is set aside in the consolidation proceeding or in the subsequent suit or it is held that the father of the complainant died in 1980 and was thus not alive to execute the sale deed in question, it cannot be said that the sale deed is forged document and as such the filing of the complaint case is unwarranted and the Court could not have taken cognizance on this ground for non-prosecution of the case. At the stage when cognizance was taken i.e. on 9.10.2007 this matter obviously could not have been brought to the notice of the Court and the Court taking cognizance found that there is a prima facie case and took cognizance of the offence. Now that the matter of forging the sale deed has been temporarily set at rest by the order of the Appellate Court. This Court, therefore, finds that in the facts aforesaid, no offence can 3 be made out under Sections 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. In the result, the order dated 9.10.2007 is quashed. This application is allowed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)