IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellanious No.4632 of 2009 (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) Pawan Kishore Sah, son of Late Ramanand Sah, resident of village Sonapur, P.S. Narpatganj, Distt. Araria. -------Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Sila Devi @ Sushela Devi, wife of late Ramanand Sah, daughter of Kishuni Sah of village Sonapur, P.S. Narpatganj, Araria. 3. Dilip Kumar Sah, son of Kishuni Sah, resident of Goghlapur, P.s. Narpatganj, Distt. Araria, at present resident of village Chatapur, P.s. Chatapur, Distt. Araria. 4. Kumud Kumar Sah @ Kumod Prasad Sah 5. Pankaj Kumar Sah Both sons of late Ramanand Sah 6. Md. Astemal 7. Md. Mahfooj 8. Md. Touhid. 9. Md. Tamjid. 10. Md. Tanzil. All sons of Sekh Bhola. 11. Sekh Bhola, son of Fuchai All resident of village Sonapur, P.S. Narpatganj, Distt. Araria. 12. Chander Sah 13. Halka Karmchari at Mauza Sonapur Anchal, Narpatganj, P.S. Narpatganj, Distt. Araria. 14. Umesh Chandra Sah, son of Haricharan Sah, resident of village Sonapur, P.S. Narpatganj (O.P. Bathnaha), Distt. Araria. 15. Sk. Fainul, son of Atabul, resident of village Sonapur Chokorwa, P.S. Narpatganj, Distt. Araria. ------Opposite parties. --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shiv Shankar Azad, Adv. For the State : Miss. Pushpa Sinha, A.P.P. -------- P R E S E N T THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The petitioner who is the Complainant is aggrieved 2 with the order dated 22.8.2008 passed in Criminal Revision No. 27/161 of 2007 by which it has affirmed the order dated 15.2.2007 passed in Complaint Case No. 2349C of 2001/2366C of 1999 by which it has refused to frame additional charge under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It has been submitted that the petitioner had a grievance that the accused persons by impersonating him had sold out the land which belonged to the petitioner. The Revisional Court disallowed the petitioner since no documentary proof had been brought to show that any fraud had been committed by anyone or that the accused persons had practiced impersonation and allegation was merely oral in the nature. I am inclined to agree with the Revisional Order as, also since this is a second revision in the garb of 482 Cr. P.C. and no patent illegality could be pointed out, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. 3. The application is dismissed. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated, 28th June, 2011. NAFR/S.ALI.