IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.82 of 2009 Madhu Rai, son of Late Sahju Rai, village Tara Dhamaun, PS Patori, District Samastipur – Petitioner. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Jagdeo Rai, son of Late Govardhan Rai, 3. Girija Devi, wife of Jagdeo Rai, 4. Paramhansh Rai, son of Jagdeo Rai, 5. Radha Krishna Prasad (Deed Writer),Registry Office Compound, Samastipur, resident of Shivapur Maricha, PS Tajpur, District Samastipur. 6. Sri Chandra Rai, son of Late Saryug Rai, 7. village Tara Dhamaun, PS Patori, district Samastipur – Opposite parties. 4 2.9.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. This application has been filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur in Trial No. C 852/2009 by which the opposite parties have been acquitted of the charges under sections 406, 120B, 465, 420, 418 and 471 of the Penal Code. The prosecution case, in short, is that the opposite parties obtained the signature of the complainant on the pretext of showing him to a doctor and converted it into a sale deed. On perusal of the evidence, the court below has disbelieved the statement of the complainant and dismissed it on the ground that Madhu Rai has himself admitted that he had executed several sale deeds prior to this case/complaint and also on the ground that even after execution of the sale deed in question, Madhu Rai had executed other deeds with respect to different properties and as such was well aware of the procedure of execution of sale deeds. The complainant has also filed a suit before the Sub Judge to set aside the sale deed in question and as such the court held 2 that he had already taken recourse to a remedy available under the law. In the circumstances I do not find any defect in the reasonings given by the court below while acquitting the opposite parties. This application is, thus, dismissed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)