IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4293 of 2008 1. RAJESH LAL KATRIAR 2. MAKHAN LAL MAHTO 3. AJAY MISHRA 4. TRILOKI SINGH & 5. LALLAN PRASAD Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4 22.04.2010. Heard learned counsel for the parties. All the five petitioners have come to this court for quashing entire proceeding including the order dated 20.1.2007, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in GR no. 1687 of 2004/Tr. 1591 of 2007 arising out of Civil Lines Police Station case no., 182 of 2004, whereby cognizance has been taken for offence punishable under sections 465,344,347,468,420,471 and 120B of the I.P.C. It is alleged in the prosecution case that petitioner no.2 on the pretext of providing care to one Savitri Devi who was suffering from Cancer brought her to her Naihar. Thereafter, all the five accused persons duped her in executing the sale deed in their favour. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid allegation has not been made in the life time of said Savitri Devi who died on 10.5.2004, whereas the complaint was filed on 14.7.2004 challenging the sale deed executed in favour of petitioner no.1 on 16.2.2004. He further submits that sale deed has been duly executed by Savitri Devi as her photograph also was affixed on sale deed. Thus the allegation that the accused persons duped her in executing the sale deed does not have any leg to stand. It is further submitted that the allegations levelled against them are vague. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitioner no.2 is the - 2 - son of Chhote Lal Mahton, the full brother of late Savitri Devi. It appears on 20.12.2003 he brought Savitari Devi to his house/her Naihar for providing her treatment for cancer. It is alleged that petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 got her thumb impressions on some papers on the pretext of providing medical care. When said Savitri Devi returned to her house, she learnt that accused persons by playing fraud has manipulated her signature in forging sale deed. Learned counsel for the complainant and the State submit that at the stage of cognizance, the Court cannot weigh the evidence and look into the defence of accused persons. From perusal of materials on record, I don not find that there is sufficient material for proceeding against petitioner no. 4 and 5, as the complaint case does not disclose the role played by either of them in the alleged occurrence. In the circumstances, criminal prosecution against petitioner no.4 and 5 is quashed. The instant petition is dismissed against petitioner no.1, 2 and 3. However, it will be open to them to raise their points at the time of framing of charge, which would be considered by the court below without prejudice. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)