Criminal Miscellaneous No.1025 OF 2004 ****** In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ******** 1. Kameshwar Prasad, Son of Late Mahanand Sahay, Reader in the Department of Economics (Now superannuated) Bhagalpur University. 2. Amit Kiran Prasad, Son of Kameshwar Prasad, Engineer in Bokaro Steel City. 3. Lalit Kiran Prasad,Son of Kameshwar Prasad, Officer in Punjab National Bank. All permanent resident of Mohalla Kanoo Lal Road, Kamleshwari Bhawan, Mithapur, P.S. Jakkanpur, Town and District Patna. ------ Petitioners. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Gauri Shankar Prasad, Son of Late Manbodh Prasad, resident of Mohalla – Kanoo Lal Road, Mithapur, P.S. Jakkanpur, Distt. Patna. Opposite Parties. For the petitioners : None. For the State : None. For the Opposite Party No. 2 : None. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. No one appears on behalf of the petitioners and the opposite party No. 2. 2. The petitioners seek quashing of the entire proceeding in Complaint Case No. 1807(C) of 2000 as well as the order dated 22.3.2002 by which the Judicial Magistrate, Patna has taken cognizance in the matter and issued summons against the accused persons after noting that a case under Section 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code was made out 2 as also the order dated 26.8.2003 passed by the Sessions Judge, Patna, in Cr. Revision No. 482 of 2002 by which he has dismissed the revision application filed against the order of cognizance. 3. On 13.7.2004, the matter was heard in admission and was ordered to be placed for hearing after notices to the opposite party No. 2. Notices were duly sent upon the opposite party No. 2 who appeared through counsel who has chosen not to appear before this Court today. 4. The case of the opposite party No. 2 is that a title suit was pending between the parties who were asserting therein rights over a certain piece of land lying in Mithapur, in course of which the petitioners are said to have filed and produced a photocopy of three documents including Permission Form No. 5333/IV-B-116/39 entry No. 59 of 1939 with concerned maps which in his opinion were forged and fabricated since it was informed to him by the Deputy Adminstrator, Patna Municipal Corporation that during the period from April 1936 to March, 1941, he was the Chairman-cum-Executive Officer of Patna Administrative Committee and there was no post of Executive Officer, and, therefore, those documents perpetrated to have been granted by the Executive Officer of Patna Administrative Committee could not have been done. He further alleged that these documents have been manufactured only with a view to demonstrate their possession since the year 1939 over the suit land and, therefore, a case under Section 420, 120B, 466, 468 and 3 471 of the Indian Penal code was made out against the accused persons. 5. The Judicial Magistrate after examining the Complainant on solemn affirmation and holding an enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P.C. passed the order taking cognizance. From the petition filed herein, it appears that the petitioners are aggrieved by the order of cognizance also on the ground that the Complainant had already taken recourse of Section 340 Cr. P.C. which was finally dismissed by the court below and without waiting for the outcome, the present Complaint was not maintainable. I am unable to agree with this proposition since Section 343 Cr. P.C. is applicable to forgery of only those documents which are in custody of the court and not prior to it having been filed. 6. However, from the perusal of the Complaint, I find that there is absolutely no material on record to affirmatively even suggest that it was the petitioners who forged those documents in absence of which no offence under Sections 466, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code would be made out. Further in Criminal cases of such nature, vicarious liability of the accused persons cannot be presumed by the court and the prosecution is duty bond to disclose specifically as to which of the accused persons were liable for what offence. Moreover, just a vague and general allegation without any foundational material as to who in what manner had cheated the opposite party No. 2 the allegation of 420 I.P.C. is also not sustainable. 4 7. Considering the principles of quashing as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court repeatedly, I am bound in law to quash the Complaint since it is clearly an abuse of the process of the court. 8. Accordingly, this application is allowed and and the entire proceeding including the order dated 22.3.2002 passed by Sri D.S. Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 1807(C) of 2000 by which cognizance was taken against the petitioner and order dated 26.8.2003 passed by Sessions Judge, Patna, in Cr. Revision No. 482 of 2002 dismissing the application are hereby quashed. Patna High Court, Patna Dated, the 7th July, 2010 NAFR/S.ALI ( Anjana Prakash, J.)