IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5642 of 2010 HARIDWAR SINGH @ HARDWAR SINGH son of late Ayodhya Singh, resident of village –Dharampura, P.S. Tararai, Dist.-Bhojpur, Ara. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.Satyendra Choudhary son of Ramnath Choudhary, resident of village Sanjhauli,P.S.-Sanjhauli, Dist.-Rohtas. ----------- 2. 17.2.2010 Heard Mr. Digvijay Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State. The petitioner invoking the jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has prayed for quashing the first information report i.e. Udwant Nagar P.S.Case No.230 of 2004 dated 13.10.2004 for the offences under sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner while advancing argument in favour of quashing of the first information report submitted that though in the complaint petition the complainant had stated that he had sold the vehicle in question for Rs.1,50,000/-, the sale letter discloses the amount as Rs.1,55,000/-. Learned counsel argued that difference of amount in the sale letter as well as in the complaint petition indicates that the case is false. Learned counsel further by way of referring annexure-2 at pages 23 and 24 submitted that back portion of the sale letter indicates that it was obtained on 13.10.1999. However, the sale letter discloses the date as 10.1.1997. He also submitted that this fact is sufficient to indicate that how the complainant had concocted the false case against the petitioner. 2 Be that as it may, first information report was instituted long back in the year 2004 and after lapse of such a long time in the year 2010 the petitioner has come before this Court that too while invoking extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the first information report. Annexure-2, which has been brought on record is photo copy of the sale letter and, as such, it is difficult to come to a definite finding that non-judicial paper was obtained in the year 1999 and by way of back dating the sale letter was prepared. It cannot be examined by this Court, particularly, at this stage. Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner has not come with clean hand. He has not indicated in the petition that in the case after investigation charge sheet was submitted and after commitment of the case it is pending before the Court of Sessions. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petition is dismissed. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)