Criminal Miscellanious No.17660 OF 2006 ********* (In the Matter of an Application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code) ****** KISHORE KUMAR SRIVASTAVA SON OF AYODHYA LAL SRIVASTAVA @ AYODHYA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-ALAMGANJ, P.S. SASARAM, DISTRICT-ROHTAS -------------------------------------PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SURYAVANSH TIWARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-URDA, P.S.-CHENARI, DISTRICT-ROHTAS (SASARAM. 3. JOKHAN TIWARI, SON OF LATE RAM SAKAL TIWARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-KHAIRIS BABHANGANVA, P.S. SASARAM, DISTRICT- ROHTAS (SASARAM) -----------------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES **** FOR THE PETITIONER : Mr. Anil Kumar No.1, Adv. Mr. Abhinay Raj, Adv. FOR OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 2 : Mr. Rajni Kant Pandey, Adv. *********** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN O R D E R Sheema Ali Khan, J. Heard both the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 09.11.2005 by which the court below has refused to discharge him for the offences allegedly committed under Sections 167, 204, 467, 468, 469, 471, 420, 426, 474, 120B, 323, and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation in the case is that the sale deed was executed by the wife of the complainant on 2 18.08.1983 in favour of the accused no. 1. This sale deed was with respect to 2 acres and 60 decimals of lands. Another sale deed was executed on 12.04.1996 by the wife of the complainant in favour of Saroj Devi with respect to 41 decimals of land. 3. The purchaser applied for certified copy of the sale deed. The first certified copy of the sale deed showed the plots and the area correctly mentioned. However, when the complainant went to take second certified copy of the sale deeds, he discovered that there was interpolation in the sale deed, as Plot No. 103 has been added to the sale deed and the boundary of the land sold has also been changed. The petitioner has signed as one of the person who read out the sale deed when the certified copy was being prepared. 4. The defence raised on behalf of the petitioner is that he is not a beneficiary of the interpolation made in the sale deed. It has been argued that the person who is benefitted has made the interpolation with the help of the person who copied the sale deed. At this stage, this Court cannot pinpoint how and to what extent each of the accused persons had participated in preparing or making interpolation in the sale deed. 5. I do not think it proper for this court to interfere in a case of this nature. The defence raised by the 3 petitioner will be decided during the trial. 6. This application is accordingly disposed of. ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.) PATNA HIGH COURT DATED, THE 17TH MARCH, 2011 N.A.F.R./SAFIK