IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.55980 of 2007 1. BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA son of Bhubneshwar Pd. Verma, resident of village Rampur Khora, P.S. Udakishanganj, District- Madhepura. 2. Bindi Mandal son of late Kartik Mandal 3. Md. Mojibuddin son of late Md. Janabuddin 4. Md. Akhatar Ali son of Suleman 5. Md. Saud Alam son of late Md. Ayub Ali. Resident of village Madheli, P.S. Alam Nagar, District- Madhepura. . . . . Petitioners. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 7/ 10.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners pray for quashing the order dated 08.09.2007 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura in G.R. No.359 of 2006, arising out of Alam Nagar P.S. case no. 12 of 2006, whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code. The informant stated that one Md. Ramjan Ali and his brother Chand Ali purchased a piece of land of plot no. 567/91, bearing khata no. 53/290, measuring 82 decimals. It is further stated that Chand Ali died issueless. One Md. Qayum, son of Ramjan Ali also died. Aforesaid Ramjan Ali on 15.10.1996 executed registered deed of sale in favour of opposite party no.-2, a copy of deed of Will is annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. He further states that Ramjan Ali, the grand father of opposite party no.2, died on 10.03.2004 and after his death opposite party no.-2 is coming in peaceful possession over the said piece of land. The informant alleged that the accused /petitioners in connivance with others got a sale deed executed in their favour by putting a different person as Md. Ramjan Ali. It is further alleged that the picture of Md. Ramjan Ali was pasted - 2 - on the sale deed with photo stat picture in another sale deed. It is further alleged that the thumb impressions of another persons were put on the sale deed personating it to be that of Ramjan Ali. The informant states that Ramjan Ali died on 10.03.2004 and as such the registered sale deed in favour of one of the petitioners dated 03.08.2005, is a forged and concocted document. Counsel for the petitioners submits that Md. Ramjan Ali in fact died on 31.08.2005. They further state that the informant in the First Information Report has falsely stated that Md. Ramjan Ali passed away in the year, 2004. In support of his submission, counsel for the petitioners have annexed death certificate issued by Gram Panchayat, as contained in Ananexure-2 to this application. He further submits that the Block Development Officer in connivance with opposite party no.2 submitted a false report. Learned counsel submits that no case under Section, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code would be made out, as none of the ingredients of the aforesaid provisions have been alleged in the First Information Report. Learned counsel submits that it has been observed by Hon’ble Apex Court that such case would not come within the purview of criminal offence. Counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the police after investigation submitted charge-sheet. In enquiry, the Block Development Officer, Alamnagar also found the allegations against all the petitioners to be true. He further submits that at the stage of cognizance, the court would not look into the defence of the accused persons. - 3 - Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. The opposite party no.2 has alleged that Md. Ramjan Ali could not have executed the transfer deed in favour of purchaser Saud Alam in the year, 2005, as he died on 10.03.2004. In support of his submission counsel for the opposite party has annexed death certificate issued on 26.02.2006, as contained in Annexure-3 to this petition in the counter affidavit. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioners submits that the sale deed executed by Md. Ramjan Ali in favour of petitioner no.5 is genuine, as he died on 31.08.2005. The allegations hinges on the fact that whether Ramjan Ali died prior to the execution of sale deed, dated 03.08.2005 in favour of petitioner no.5 or whether he died on 10.03.2004 and the sale deed executed in the year, 2005 in favour of petitioner no.5 would be a false document. The adjudication of such issue is not possible at the stage of cognizance, as such I do not find any merit in this application and the same is dismissed. However, the materials on record do not disclose prima facie materials for prosecuting petitioner-1, the deed writer, as such the impugned order taking cognizance against him is quashed. This application stands disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)