IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37127 of 2007 1. JYOTISH SINGH, S/o Late Jagarnath Singh. 2. Suresh Kumar Singh, S/o Late Chandrika Singh. 3. Chandeshwar Singh, S/o Late Anant Singh. 4. Ramashish Prasad Singh, S/o Ram Suresh Prasad. 5. Gauri Shankar Singh, S/o Late Mangal Singh. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Ram Naresh Singh, S/o Late Ramasharan Singh. ----------- 04. 29.01.2010 No one appears on behalf of the opposite party. Heard. The petitioners seek quashing of the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 660 of 2003 including the order dated 27.03.2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan by which he has taken cognizance for the offences under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code. The opposite party No. 2 instituted a complaint on 28.05.2003 stating therein that on 29.04.2003 at 7 P.M. the accused persons gathered at the Darwaza of accused No. 2 consulted with each other that they would prepare a forged sale deed and allocated a role to be enacted by each of them for the same. As per the plan the accused persons went to the Registry Office and different accused persons as per the plan engrafted and prepared the forged sale deed. When the complainant came to know of it he got a copy of the same and found out that in fact a forged sale deed had been prepared by the accused - 2 - persons. However, when he went to the police no case was instituted by them and therefore the present complaint was instituted. It appears that the complainant had earlier filed a Title Suit No. 21 of 2003 in the court of Sub-Judge 1, Siwan and therefore for the same piece of land he has filed a criminal case as well as the title suit which was pending. There is no doubt that the same cause of action can give rise to both a civil as well as criminal proceeding but on going through the complaint, I find that the complaint is totally absurd since it speaks of the entire conspiracy being hatched in the pressure of the complainant which no prudent person in his right mind would accept. While discussing the powers of quashing in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 SC 604 has held that one of the grounds for quashing a criminal proceeding is:- “Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.” Applying the ratio enumerated above in my opinion it is difficult to accept and it appears absurd that the accused would have hatched and executed the - 3 - conspiracy of preparation of the document in the presence of the complaint and explore themselves to the dangers of a criminal prosecution. In the result, I allow this application and quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 660 of 2003 including the order dated 27.03.2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan. Vikash/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)