IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.701 of 2008 BHUPENDRA NATH TIWARI, S/O- LATE PASUPTI NATH TIWARI, R/O- BHABHUA, WARD NO. 12(OLD), NEW WARD NO. 19, P.S.- BHABHUA (T), DISTT. KAIMUR AT BHABHUA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DHANANJAY TIWARI S/O- LATE MUNNI TIWARI 3. ANIL TIWARI, S/O- LATE RAJNATH TIWARI 4. TRIBHUWAN TIWARI 5. HARISHANKAR TIWARI 6. AMARNATH TIWARI ALL SONS OF LATE KULDEEP TIWARI 7. SMT. CHANDRAVATI KUER W/O- LATE AJIT TIWARI, R/O- BHABHUA, WARD NO. 12(OLD), NEW WARD NO. 19, P.S.- BHABHUA (T), DISTT. KAIMUR AT BHABHUA. For the petitioner : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 4 09.11.2010 Heard both sides. In spite of service of notice, the opposite parties have not appeared in the present proceeding to contest the same. Petitioner is the complainant. He is aggrieved by the order dated 18.4.2008 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Bhabhua in Complaint Case no. 736 of 2007 (Bhupendra Nath Tiwari versus Munni Tiwari & Ors) whereby the complaint has been dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) after holding as under: “From the perusal of complaint petition it is evident that there is title suit pending for preparation of final decree in court of Sub- Judge, Bhabua. It is also evident that award was passed by Lok Adalat Bhabua vide order dated 24.5.07. As per case of the complainant fraud was played before Permanent Lok Adalat Bhabua. In my opinion the court where fraud was played is only competent to take action against accused persons. The nature of the case is fully civil nature.” 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr versus Meenakshi Marwah & Ors since reported in 2005(2) P.L.J.R. (SC) 236, submits that the view taken by learned Court below is erroneous. He relies on paragraphs 6, 9, 10, 20, 25 and 26 of the judgment in order to impress this Court that in a case where the allegation is about commission of forgery, the complainant is entitled to initiate a criminal proceeding and the Court in such matter would not be justified in denying the relief on the ground that based on only a complaint lodged by the Court in terms of Section 340 of the Code, criminal proceeding could be ignited. It appears from the impugned order that learned Court below has taken a view that the fraud or forgery, if any, was committed by the accused cited in the complaint in the Court of Lok Adalat, Bhabua and as such the Court was not competent to initiate the proceeding. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State in view of the proposition of law enunciated in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra) submits that the view taken by the learned court below seems to be erroneous and contrary to law laid down in the aforesaid case. It is the stand that matter may be remitted to the court below for fresh consideration in the light of ratio laid down in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra). In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order impugned. Consequently, the order dated 3 18.4.2008 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Bhabhua in Complaint Case no. 736 of 2007 is quashed and set aside. Learned Trial Court shall consider the matter afresh in the light of law laid down in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra) and would proceed to dispose of the same in accordance with law. The application is allowed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )