CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.16764 OF 2004 ********** In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ********** RAMANUJ SINGH S/O LATE TANIK SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-SHERPAR, POLICE STATION-BARBIGHA, DISTRICT- SHEIKHPURA. --------------------------(Appellant) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAMANAND SINGH, S/O LATE TANIK SINGH R/O VILLAGE- SHERPUR, POLICE STATION- BARBIGHA, DISTRIT-SHEIKHPURA. -----------------------(Respondents) ************ For the Petitioner : 1. Mr. Ajay Kr. Thakur Adv. 2. Dr.Anjani Pd.Singh Adv. For the State : Damuder Prasad Tiwary App. For Opp. Party : 1. Mr.Bipin Kumar Singha 2. Mr. Sunil Kr. Adv. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ********* Anjana Prakash, J. The petitioner seeks quashing of the entire proceedings including the order dated 1.4.2004 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura in complaint case no. 277 (C)/2003 by which he has taken cognizance under Sections 417, 419, 420, 465, 466, 470, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. 2. On 19.10.2005 this application was admitted for hearing and further proceeding in the court below was stayed. Since the opposite party no. 2 had already appeared no notices were separately sent to him. Today both the parties are present in court and advance their rival contentions. 3. The background of the case is that the opposite party no. 2 filed a First Information Report which was numbered as Barbigha P.S. case no. 14/2003 stating therein that the petitioner had filed a document of partition purported to have been signed by Srikant Singh and Raj Kumar Singh which was allegedly forged. After close of investigation the police submitted the final report bearing report no. 101/2003 on 4.1.2003in the matter, considering the same to be one of civil dispute. Thereafter the complainant filed a protest petition before the court below which was treated as a complaint and cognizance was taken in the matter. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the present complaint was a subject matter of judicial scrutiny in the civil dispute and the complaint was nothing but a superfluous proceeding which should not have proceeded. Further contention of the petitioner is that subsequently the very same issue was decided by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and the issue was negated in favour of the petitioner. The document was under the circumstances accepted to be genuine and the decree followed. Further when Srikant was examined as witness no. 1 in 202 Cr.P.C. enquiry he also did not specifically assert so there. The further submission of the petitioner is that there cannot be any presumption that it is the petitioner who had prepared the allegedly forged document just because he had filed the same before the court. 5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has stated that since the petitioner was the beneficiary of the document which he had filed, therefore, a presumption lay that it was the petitioner who had forged the document. The second contention of the complainant is that this court should not look into the decree passed in the title suit since that was not part of the documents filed on behalf of the prosecution. 6. On consideration of the complaint petition I find that the admitted position is that the complainant had already resorted to a Title Suit for partition of the property with accused persons who are co-parcenors before the present complaint was filed. It is also clear that the document which was filed on behalf of the petitioner was dated 15.1.1983 and the land had been mutated thereafter whereas the present complaint was filed only on 5.2.2003 almost 20 years later. The other admitted position is that the persons whose signatures were purportedly forged i.e. Srikant and Raj Kumar Singh did not institute any complaint anywhere in the intervening period of 20 years and it was only when he was examined as witness no. 2 in the enquiry conducted under Section 202 Cr.P.C. that he generally stated that he had not signed the document. The said Srikant Singh was defendant no. 4 and Raj Kumar Singh was defendant no. 5 in the Title Suit but they did not assert in Title Suit that they had not signed the document and therefore it was forged. Had they done so, there would have been proper enquiry in the matter by the Civil Court since it was in seisin of the matter. In my view, also, there is no presumption that just because the document was filed by the petitioner in the Civil Suit and he sought to derive benefit for the same it was he who had forged document 20 years ago. Moreover the entire allegations in the complaint are oral. In view of such, the complaint is nothing but frivolous and malafide and deserves to be set aside. Also, the fact that a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction has upheld the validity of the document in question has a direct bearing in the present complaint. 7. Thus this application is allowed and the entire proceeding including order dated 1.4.2004 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura in complaint case no. 277 (C)/2003 by which he has taken cognizance under Sections 417, 419, 420, 465, 466, 470, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. is hereby quashed. ( Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 23th July, 2010 NAFR/ Fahad.