IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.13315 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. Ajay Kumar 2. Ashwini Kumar 3. Sushil Kumar 4. Sideshwar Prasad 5. Babita Kumari 6. Reshmi Kumari .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. State of Bihar 2. Rameshwar Prasad .... .... Opposite Parties *********** 3 9-9-2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 9.10.2006 passed by Sri Dhirendra Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Biharsharif, Nalanda in Complaint Case No. 300(c)/2006 whereby cognizance has been taken under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 120B IPC and summons have been ordered to be issued against the petitioners. Case of the complainant (opposite party no.2) is that he purchased 82 ½ decimals of land appertaining to plot nos. 79, 81, 123, 94 and 1203 from accused no.1, came in cultivating possession of the same, rent receipts issued in his name, sale deed is said executed in name of his son. Further it is said that accused nos.1,2 2 and 3 executed sale deeds in favour of accused nos. 4 to 8 including petitioner nos. 4,5 and 6 in respect of very same plot by executing three sale deeds. Accused nos. 9 to 12 have been alleged for participation in commission of forgery playing role of witnesses, identifiers and scribers. T.S.no. 27/06 is said filed on behalf of complainant-Opposite party no.2 in respect of above said three fabricated sale deeds and the same was pending in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Biharsharif. Further allegation is that at around 5.00 PM on 1.4.2006 accused nos. 1 to 3 along with 5-6 unknown persons entered the compound of complainant, hurling abuses although information in respect thereof was given to the Police but no action was taken. Hence the Complaint. With having similar allegation accused nos. 7 and 8 along with one Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kapoor shown accused no.13, approached this Court against the impugned order of court below vide Cr.Misc.No. 47850 of 2006, opposite party no.2 was noticed, State also appeared, after hearing the parties, order of cognizance as well as the criminal proceeding was quashed 3 by a Bench of this Court. Taking the same into consideration, this application is allowed. The impugned order of cognizance dated 9.10.2006 as well as criminal proceeding is quashed. AI (Mandhata Singh, J)