IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.17627 of 2005 MD. SALIM Son of late Shekh Samsuddin, resident of village- Muslim Tola, Sabour, P.S. Sabour, Distt.- Bhagalpur. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 6/ 14.01.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner prays for quashing of the order dated 12.05.2004 passed in Sabour P.S. case no. 135 of 2003 whereby Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 420, 120 B,467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant earlier filed a complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 467 of 2003, which was referred to the police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. giving rise to Sabour P.S. case no. 135 of 2003 dated 07.06.2003. The informant stated that the father of the petitioner, executed a registered sale-deed on 07.04.1988 bearing Khata No. 619 Plot Nos. 381 and 382 appertaining to 2 decimals of land. After purchase, the informant’s name was mutated over the land. It is alleged that after death of the transferee, namely, Sheikh Samsuddin, his son Md. Salim got greedy eye on the property and got wrong Death Certificate showing that his father died on 03.02.1988. On the basis of the aforesaid Death Certificate, the petitioner got initiated a proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. The informant, further stated in Paragraph-3 of the complaint that the transferee, namely, Sheikh Samsuddin was present on 08.06.1988, on the date when Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur was to deliver judgment in Case No. 306 of 1986 bearing Tr. No. 813 of 1988 on the other hand. - 2 - Learned counsel submits that the police, after investigation found the case of Civil nature. Learned counsel submits that in fact, his father died on 03.02.1988 and as such, he was not alive to execute a sale-deed in question, in favour of the informant. It has further been submitted that rent receipts have also been issued in his favour in respect of premises in question after passing of order under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. The version of the informant’s that petitioner’s father was alive on 07.04.1988 and the certificate in question is forged one, whereas the version of the petitioner is that he died on 03.02.1988 and the certificate is genuine. The aforesaid facts could be only ascertained on the basis of evidence that may come later on, in the case. Learned counsel submits that Circle Officer in course of enquiry, found that the petitioner’s father died on 03.02.1988 on the basis of death certificate. All these facts which are not on record will not be looked at the time of passing order on the point of cognizance. As the allegation made by the informant, is one of having got a wrong Death Certificate, I am not inclined to quash the impugned order. However, it will be open to the petitioner to take all these points at the time of framing of charge. This application is, accordingly, disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)