IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.36672 of 2007 Ashok Kumar Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate, with : Mr. A. Kundan , Advocate and : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate For Opposite party No. 2: Mr. Ajay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP ---------- 11. 19.10.2011 Leave is sought on behalf of the petitioner to delete Opposite party nos. 4 & 5. Let it be so done at the risk of the petitioner. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the State and the Opposite parties. In this application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the complainant in Complaint Case No. 439 ( C ) of 2002 alleges that by use of a fabricated and manufactured letter dated 12.1.2002 the Opposite parties 2 and 3 persuaded this Court to quash the complaint case in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. registered as Cr. Misc. No. 7268 of 2003 by order dated 30.6.2004. The letter dated 12.1.2002 was manufactured for the purpose of the case. The letter dated 12.1.2002 is the fulcrum of the order in Cr. Misc. No. 7168 of 2003, on contest between the parties. The order in Cr. Misc. No. 7168 of 2003 was questioned by the petitioner before the Supreme Court unsuccessfully when the Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 25.10.2004. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Supreme Court while dismissing the Special Leave Petition had observed that it was without prejudice to any other remedy available to the petitioner for approaching the High Court. 2 The petitioner therefore desires that the Opposite party nos. 2 & 3 be prosecuted under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for having presented a forged and fabricated document during course of the proceeding before this Court. If the Opposite party nos. 2 & 3 had allegedly utilized a forged and fabricated letter dated 12.1.2002, it was open for the petitioner to point out that aspect and raise issue in Cr. Misc. No. 7168 of 2003 itself. To the contrary, the pleadings in the present application are completely silent with regard to any explanation why this objection was not raised during hearing of the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Further more the Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 25.10.2004. The present application has been filed on 8.8.2007. There is no explanation worth the name in the pleadings as to why the petitioner took such a long time to discover much less how and when he discovered that letter dated 12.1.2002 produced in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was a forged and fabricated document. The order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. adequately notices that there was a business relationship between the parties. Payments were made in pursuance of the same. The opposite parties 2 and 3 have already had to face the travails of contesting the proceeding before the Supreme Court also. In the entirety of the facts circumstances this Court is not satisfied of the bonafides of the petitioner in having moved the present application. The application is accordingly dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)