CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30774 OF 2003 ------- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. -------- 1.JANARDAN PANDEY son of Sri Ganga Pandey 2.Smt.Phulwaso Devi wife of Janardan Pandey 3.Prem Nath @ Kamlesh son of Janki Rai All resident of B/7, Phulwa Niwas, Sai Chak, Near Beur Jail, P.S.-Phulwarisharif, Dist.-Patna …….. ..…..Petitioners Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Rajendra Prasad Gupta son of late Ram Das Gupta Resident of Mohalla: Gulab Bagh, P.O.-Bankipur, P.S.-Kadam Kuan, District- Patna. ……. ……Opp. Parties ------- For the petitioners: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri For Opp.Party No.2: Mr.Shailendra Kumar Sinha Mr.Dilip Kumar For the State: Dr.Indever Kumari, A.P.P. ------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ------- Rakesh Kumar,J. Three petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in sum and substance have prayed for quashing of first information report i.e. Gandhi Maidan P.S. No.44 of 2003 registered for the offences under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The first information report discloses that the informant in the year 1983 had purchased the land in question in the name of his wife and two sons which was registered in the Registry Office, Police Station Gandhi Maidan, Patna. After the land was registered, the same was mutated and rent receipts were issued from 1983-84 to 2000-2001. On 21.7.2003 while informant went to deposit rent he was informed by Karamchari of the Circle Office, Phulwarisharif that rent receipt cannot be issued in the name of his 2 wife and his two sons since it was also mutated in the name of petitioner no.2, wife of petitioner no.1. Subsequently, it transpired that a sale deed was executed in favour of petitioner no.2 (accused) by producing a fictitious lady in the name of wife of the informant and two fictitious persons in the name of his two sons by petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.3 had signed the document as witness no.2. It was alleged that even signature of the informant was also got forged on the document showing him as one of the witnesses. It was categorically disclosed by the informant that after purchase of the land, the informant got the house constructed on the land in question and he was also having electric connection. After noticing the fraud, the informant filed a written information to the Officer Incharge of Gandhi Maidan Police Station and, thereafter, Gandhi Mandan P.S. Case No.44 of 2003 was registered on 9.2.2003 for the offence under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the three accused persons-petitioners. It appears that after lodging the first information report, the petitioners approached this court by filing the present petition with a prayer to quash the first information report. 3. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has raised several points for quashing the first information report. In this case Mr.Shailendra Kumar Sinha has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 and Dr. Indiwar Kumari has appeared on behalf of the State. Opposite party no.2 has also filed a counter affidavit refuting the claim of the petitioners. 4. Without going into detail, on perusal of the first information report the court is satisfied that it was a clear cut case of 3 fraud and the first information report discloses commission of cognizable offences which require no interference. Moreover, while exercising power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it would not be proper to interfere in the present matter. On the basis of averments made in the petition it is not in dispute that no proceeding was pending before the court below. Only first information report was registered. It need not be reiterated that in absence of pendency of any proceeding before the court below the power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not required to be invoked or exercised. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I do not find any merit in the case and the petition stands rejected. 5. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay dated 12.5.2004 stands automatically vacated. 6. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of Police, Patna as well as to the Officer Incharge Gandhi Maidan Police Station, Patna. 7. It is expected that without any delay, the investigating officer will commence investigation so that the matter may come to its logical end at the earliest. The investigation has already delayed for a long time. 8. With the above observation and direction, the petition stands rejected. Patna High Court The 17th September, 2010 Md.S./NAFR ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)