Criminal Appeal (U/S) No.3 of 1998 Against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 05.06.1996 passed by Sri Shailendra Kumar Pandey, Judicial Magistrate,Ist Class, Siwan, in Case No. C/25/1986/Tr. No. 3/1996. Mohammad Sadiq, son of Reyasat Mian, deceased resident of Nai Bazar, Mairwa, Police Station- Mairwa, District- Siwan. .... .... Appellant. Versus 1. Bhagwan Gond , son of Sheo Dhari Gond, resident of Village Kaitholi, P.S. Mairwa, District- Siwan. 2. Zainuddin Mian, son of Habib Mian, resident of Village- Sahpur, P.S. Jalalpur, District- Saran. 3. Jagarnath Prasad, son of Bhola Kurmi, resident of Village- Nauka Tola, Mairwa, P.S. Mairwa, District-Siwan. 4. Saudagar Dusadh, son of Bhoj Dusadh, resident of Village- Kaitholi, P.S. Mairwa, District-Siwan. 5. The State of Bihar. .... .... Respondent For the Appellant. : Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi, Amicus Curiae. Mr. Lallan Prasad For the Respondent (No.5) State : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, A.P.P. Mr. Arvind Saroz PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD Gopal Prasad, J. Heard learned Amicus Curiae and learned counsel for the State. 2. This Cr. Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 05. 06. 1996, passed by Sri Shailendra Kumar Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Siwan, by which he has acquitted the accused persons for offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code that allegation made is 2 of civil nature and there is no evidence regarding forgery and only Civil Court has jurisdiction to declare the document as forged and hence acquitted. 3. The prosecution case as alleged that sale deed was executed with regard to land by the complainant Samrajia Devi is forged and fabricated and it has been asserted that Samrajia has wrongly mention as daughter of Sheo Baharan Dusadh and it has wrongly mentioned that Rama Shankar Tripathi is in the northern boundary as well as wrongly mentioned that Bagwatia Devi is the wife of Sheo Bharan. However, on the complaint, the complainant has examined on oath. Cognizance taken. The statement of witnesses recorded before charge. At the trial eight witnesses examined. Considering the evidence the trial court held that it is a case of civil dispute and acquitted the accused persons. 4. Perused the impugned order and evidence of witnesses there is no evidence for committing forgery and mere allegation and evidence about the name of parentage having been wrongly mentioned does not come under the definition of false document. The matter concerns with dispute in regard to land. 3 5. Hence I do not find any merit in this appeal and occurrence is of the year 1986 and matter concerns with civil dispute and criminal court has no jurisdiction to decide either right of the parties or disputed parentage of the person. 6. Hence this appeal is accordingly dismissed. Patna High Court. The 28th September, 2011. NAFR/m.p. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)