Criminal Miscellanious No.36577 OF 2007 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. SHAMBHU SHARAN SRIVASTAVA, SON OF LATE KEDAR NATH SRIVASTAVA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA NAYA TOLA, P.S. HAJIPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. MOSTT. DHARAMSHILA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE RAMESH PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RASILCHAK, P.S. PUNPUN, DISTRICT PATNA, AT PRESENT SADIKPUR RAKUNPURA, P.S. DANAPUR, DISTRICT PATNA. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioner :- Mr. A.K. Thakur, Advocate Mr. Amir Alam, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. For the O.P. :- None. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN S.A. Khan, J. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 7.6.2007, passed in Complaint Case No. 528C/07 by which the Court below has taken cognizance for offences under Sections 420,423/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The Complainant is Mostt. Dharmshila Devi. She has alleged that she executed a sale deed for a small piece of land in favour of Arvind Kumar. It is alleged that Arvind Kumar converted the papers on which she had signed, into a power of attorney in his favour. Using this power of attorney the said Arvind Kumar and Alok Kumar sold her lands to different persons mentioned in the complaint petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as Shambhu Sharan Srivastava one of 11 accused in complaint 2 petition, there is not a word against him in the complaint petition, S.A. or evidence of the other witnesses who were examined in support of the complaint case. 4. On perusal of the complaint case I find, that in fact not a single word has been said regarding the role of the petitioner in the said conversion of the sale deed into a power of attorney. It has also not been indicated as to whether the petitioner was one of the purchasers, witnesses or even scribe of the sale deed/power of attorney. In the circumstances aforesaid, I find that this is a case of no evidence against the petitioner and as such I quash the order of cognizance dated 7.6.2007, passed in Complaint Case No. 528C/2007 as far as it concerns the petitioner. 5. This quashing application is thus, allowed. Patna High Court, 10th of May, 2011 N.A.F.R./Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)