IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5077 of 2009 1. Ganesh Prasad Sahu, son of Late Chatarbhuj Sahu, Resident of Aghoriya Bazar, P.S. Kazi Mohammadpur, P.O. Ramna, District- Muzaffarpur. 2. Shamshul alias Md. Shamshul, son of Md. Ainul Khan, Resident of Orient Club, P.S.- Kazi Mohammadpur, P.O. Ramna, District- Muzaffarpur. 3. Jai Prakash, son of Late Kamta Prasad Srivastava, Resident at Bihar Khadi Gram Udyog Campus, Sarvoday Gram, P.S. Mithanpura, P.O. Kanhauli, District-Muzaffarpur. ………..Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Munni Devi, wife of Late Shyam Narain Prasad, at present residing at Oriental Club Lane, P.S. Kazi, Mohammadpur, P.O. Ramna, District-Muzaffarpur. …..Opposite Parties. For the petitioners :- Sri Rana Pratap Singh, Sr. Advocate. Sri Sumant Singh, Advocate. For the State :- Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, A.P.P. ----------- 5. 13. 12. 2010. Heard. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance 13. 05. 2004 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, in connection with Town P.S. Case No. 485 of 2003 for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation in the complaint petition that one Rita Verma is the daughter of brother of the husband of the complainant and has claimed that Rita Verma has sold the property of share of the complainant and it has been claimed that disputed sale deed executed by Rita Verma is alleged to the share of the complainant. However, the petitioners are 2 witnesses and agnates. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is a civil dispute between the parties. It is alleged that Rita Verma executed sale deed in favour of Rakesh Kumar Gupta by forgery. Forgery defined in Section 463 as whoever makes a false document. In this background false document defined under Section 464 I.P.C. three conditions have been mentioned holding to be a document is a false document; "464 Section: - makes a false document- the person said to make a false document or false electronic record. First- who dishonestly or fraudulent (a) makes, signs or executes a document or part of a document (b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record. © affixes any digital signature or any electronic record (d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digita signature with the intention of causing it to 3 be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or digital signature was made, signed or sealed executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed of, Secondly- who, when lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with digital signature either by himself or by any other person where such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration or thirdly- who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or a electronic record or to affix his digital signature on any electronic record knowing that such person be reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot or that by person of deception practiced upon him, he does not 4 know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of alternative " However the three conditions mention does not satisfy to conclude that allegation made makes out a false document as it is not a case that document was signed an authority he knows that it was not made nor in case of alteration of document nor a case of deception practiced on informal nor is a case of impersonation. Section 467 is applicable when a document is forged purport to valuable security however when the document does not comes under definition of forged document it can not be forgery. Taking into consideration the nature of allegation, it is apparently dispute regarding right of the parties whether property belongs to petitioner or complainant which can not be decided by a criminal court and hence criminal court has no jurisdiction particularly in civil suits. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, since no offence is made out and order taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate apparently appears to have been passed without due application of mind and hence the impugned order is set aside and the petition is allowed. m.p. ( Gopal Prasad, J.) 5