IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.56126 of 2006 SRIMATI MANTI DEVI & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 5. 22.8.2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned A.P.P. for the State. Although O.P. No.2 was validly served with notice, he has not cared to appear to contest this application. The grievance of the complainant, Daroga Rai, who has been impleaded herein as O.P. No.2, is that by fraudulent means and purposely his name had been omitted from the western boundary of the land, sold out by petitioner no.1 to petitioner no.2. The court below has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. I fail to understand how offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. are made out if the name of a person is omitted from one side of boundary of the land sold out. Apparently, the taking of cognizance is misconceived and is hereby quashed. The application is allowed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)