CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.22338 OF 2003 In the Matter of an Application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. RABINDRA SINGH S/O SRI SIDHESHWAR SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-BRAHAMPUR, P.S. BRAHAMPUR, DISTRICT- BUXAR. -----------------------(Petitioner) Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR, 2. CHANDRA MOHAN SINGH S/O SRI JAI GOVIND SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-BRAHAMPUR, P.S.-BRAHAMPUR, DISTRICT-BUXAR. -------------------(Opposite Parties) FOR PETITIONER :Hari Shanker Roi, Adv. FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES :B.J. Ojha Adv. Renu Kumari, A.P.P. ----------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN Sheema Ali Khan J. Heard both the parties. 2. This application has been filed against the order dated 13.10.1999 and the order dated 11.07.2002 passed in Criminal Revision No. 85/2000-32/2002. A complaint was instituted on behalf of Chandra Mohan Singh (Opposite Party No. 2) alleging therein that the petitioner had filed false Vakalatnama in the name of his father Sidheshwar Singh in Mutation Case No. 117 of 1994- 95. The Mutation Application was allowed on 25.08.1994. The opposite party No. 2-complainant, claims that he has purchased the land from Gaya Dusadh who is the son of Shivarati Dusadh and Jonhia. On the basis of his sale deed dated 08.01.1999 he filed an application for review before the Circle Officer, which was dismissed on 03.04.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal and the appeal was allowed. The petitioner filed a revision against the order of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, dated 26.02.2003 and finally he succeeded which should be apparent from Annexure- 6 which is the order of the Collector. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that this matter arises out of a civil dispute. Moreover, mutation does not create title and if any party is aggrieved by the order of mutation, then the option would be to file the civil suit. 4. On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite party No. 2-complainant submits that the petitioner had challenged the order of cognizance by filing a revision application which was dismissed. The present application is by way of the second revision and, therefore, this Court should not interfere with the matter. There are several decisions of the Apex Court and High Court that quashing application would lie against the order of revision. 5. The second contention on behalf of the counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is that this Court cannot consider the document etc. in criminal proceeding to hold that no offence is made out. After considering the submissions aforesaid on behalf of both the parties, this Court finds that the documents referred to on behalf of the petitioner are all part of a court proceeding. The question of possession and title cannot be decided in a criminal proceeding and to say that the petitioner had forged Vakalatnama on behalf of his father appears to be rather farfetched as the person concerned (whose signature was forged) has not challenged it, rather a stranger has made a challenge, that the mutation case has not been filed by Sadheshwar Singh and son of Sadheshwar Singh has filed a forged Vakalatnama. The opposite party No. 2 has to succeed on the basis of his own pleadings. 6. The claim of the opposite party no. 2 that the signature was forged has been challenged in the mutation proceeding and has been rejected. This Court finds that no offence is made out under Sections 468, 470 (1) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, as there is nothing to indicate that the document, in support of the claim of the petitioner, is based on any forged document. 7. In the result, the order dated 13.10.1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Second, Buxar and the order dated 11.07.2002 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Buxar in Criminal Case NO. 85/2000-32/2002 are hereby quashed. This application is allowed. (Sheema Ali Khan, J.) The Patna High Court The 24th Day of February, 2011 N.A.F.R./Cp:3/Safik