CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS NO. 53360 OF 2006 ********* (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ) ******* 1. MATHURA PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE BASUDEO SINGH 2. SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH, SON OF MATHURA PRASAD SINGH 3. AKHILESHWAR KUMAR SINGH @ AKHILESHAR KUMAR SINGH, SON OF MATHURA PRASAD SINGH 4. CHANDRA MADHAW SINGH @ SRI CHANDRA MADHAW PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE SHYAM NARAYAN SINGH 5. AJAY KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE SHYAM NARAYAN SINGH 6. OM PRAKASH SINGH, SON OF DEO NARAYAN SINGH 7. DEO NARAYAN SINGH, SON OF LATE BASUDEO SINGH 8. JAI PRAKASH SINGH, SON OF DEO NARAYAN SINGH 9. VED PRAKASH SINGH, SON OF DEO NARAYAN SINGH ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BHAWALPUR, POLICE STTION MARHAURA, DISTRICT SARAN (CHAPRA) ……………………………………………………….……….… ….PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. JAG NARAYAN SINGH, SON OF LATE BASUDEO SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BHAWALPUR, POLICE STATION MARHAURA, DISTRICT SARAN (CHAPRA) ……………………………….………… ……………………….……..OPPOSITE PARTIES ********** FOR THE PETITIONERS :- ER HARENDRA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR O.P. NO. 2 :- MR. DINESH JHA, ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE :- MR. RAM SUMIRAN RAI, A.P.P. ******* P R E S E N T HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN O R D E R Sheema Ali Khan, J. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. This application has been filed against the order dated 24.07.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chapra in Trial No. 4239 of 2006, arising out of 2 Complaint Case No. 1362 of 1996 (Marhaura Police Station Case No. 3 of 1999) by which cognizance has been taken under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The dispute is between the sons and grandsons of Basudeo Singh. The complainant is one of the sons whereas, three sons and grandsons are the accused in this case. A partition suit was filed, numbered as 137 of 1992 by the petitioner no. 2. The complainant was defendant in the suit. During the partition suit, the petitioners produced a deed of gift dated 05.05.1993, allegedly executed by Basudeo Singh in favour of the petitioners. It is stated here by the complainant that Basudeo Singh died on 07.08.1993 and just three months before his death, this deed of gift was produced before the Court below having the L.T.I. on it, which has been challenged by the complainant in the criminal case as well as in the suit on the ground that it is a forged and fabricated document and that Basudeo Singh was education person and there was no occasion that he would put his L.T.I. on the deed of gift. 4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that any finding against them in the criminal proceeding will greatly prejudice them and may effect the outcome of the civil suit. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 submits that it is ultimately the decision of 3 the Civil court which will have precedence over the decision of a criminal court, and therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners are unwarranted. 5. The Civil Court hearing the Partition Suit No. 137 of 1992 would undoubtedly look into the validity of the deed of gift because those lands are also family properties. In case, the Court come to the conclusion in the partition suit that the documents are forged, the complainant or his heirs would have the right and liberty to institute a fresh criminal case bringing on record all the facts including the order of this Court. 6. I may make it clear that since the liberty has been granted by this Court, no question of limitation would arise at the time of filing of the fresh criminal case by the complainant or his heirs. 7. For the present, the order dated 24.07.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chapra in Trial No. 4239 of 2006 (Complaint Case No. 1362 of 1996/Marhaura Police Station Case No. 3 of 1999) is quashed. 8. In the result, this application is allowed. ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. ) PATNA HIGH COURT DATED, THE 22nd APRIL, 2011 N.A.F.R./ANAND