IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38844 of 2007 1. Rajesh Kumar Singh adopted son of Late Bishwanath Singh Son of Late Nagendra Singh 2. Anuj Kumar Singh Son of Late Satya Narayan Singh 3. Ram Pravesh Singh Son of Late Ram Ekwal Singh 4. Dayanand Singh Son of Late Ram Munsi Singh All residents of Village-Bisunpur Rajkhand, P.S. Biddupur, District –Vaishali ------ ----- Petitioners - V e r s u s – 1. The State of Bihar 2. Urmila Devi Wife of Achita Nand Singh, resident of Village- Sultanpur, P.S. Mohiuddinagar, District-Samastipur at present Quarter no.407, Saryug Complex, Nehrunagar ,P.S. Patliputra, District-Patna ----- ----- Opp.Parties ----------- For the petitioners: M/S Ashwani Kumar Singh and Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For O.P.No.2 : Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, Advocates _________ O R D E R The petitioners, four in number, have preferred this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 17.2.2007 passed by Smt. S.Trivedi , Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hajipur, Vaishali , in Hajipur ( Town ) P.S. Case no.386 of 2003 whereby the petition under Section 239 Cr.P. C filed by the petitioners for discharging them from the said case has been dismissed. It appears that one Urmila Devi, impleaded as Opp.Party no.2 herein, filed a Complaint petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur, which was transmitted to the concerned Police Station under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and on the basis thereof the aforesaid P.S. Case came to be registered under - 2 - Sections 420,467,468,471/34 I.P.C. According to the informant she is the only issue of her father ,Bishwanath Singh, who died on 25.4.2003 at Amalai in Madhya Pradesh leaving behind his wife, Draupadi Devi, and the informant. It is said that during the life time of her father the complainant/informant used to serve her parents and upon his death she and her mother came in peaceful possession of the entire property of Late Bishwanath Singh. It is mentioned that a piece of land measuring one bigha 4 dhurs situated in village Bishunpur Rajkhand appertaining to Khata no.81, Khesra no.339 is self acquired property of Late Bishwanath Singh which he had purchased by registered sale deed dated 23.7.1967 from one Ram Uchit Singh and accused Jai Prakash Singh and Rajesh Kumar Singh have no concern therewith. It is alleged that in order to dispossess the informant and her mother, the said Rajesh Kumar Singh, showing his father’s name as Late Bishwanath Singh in the recital of the sale deed executed a sale deed in favour of one Anuj Kumar Singh in respect of an area of 5 ¼ decimals out of the total area of the aforesaid plot and accused Dayanand Singh and Ram Pravesh Singh had put their respective signatures on the said sale deed whereas one Lakshmi Mandal had identified them. It is asserted that Late Bishwanath Singh had no son and the said Rajesh Kumar Singh describing himself wrongly as the son of Late Bishwanath Singh had fraudulently executed the sale deed in favour of Anuj Kumar Singh. The Police after due investigation submitted a chargesheet under the very Sections whereunder the case was registered and - 3 - cognizance was taken. Assailing the impugned order it was sought to be submitted that one Lalit Singh had two sons Bishwanath Singh and Nageshwar Singh and Bishwanath Singh died on 25.4.2003 at Amalai leaving behind his daughter, his wife and adopted son Rajesh Kumar Singh whereas Nagendra Singh had two sons Rajesh Kumar Singh and Jai Prakash Singh and a daughter Asha Devi and that as Bishwanath Singh had no son he persuaded his brother Nagendra Singh to give his son Rajesh Kumar Singh whom he took to Amalai where he was brought up by Bishwanath Singh who later on adopted him as his own son. It is submitted that Rajesh lived throughout with Bishwanath Singh and his wife at Amalai and in proof of his having adopted Rajesh as his son had entered his name in important documents, some of which have been appended to the application as Annexures. It is also submitted that after the death of Bishwanath Singh, it was Rajesh who started looking after his business at Amalai and also managing his property at village-Bishunpur and the informant to deprive Rajesh of his rightful interest in the property and business at Amalai had filed the frivolous complaint with a view to harass and vex him and to give up his claim in the property of Late Bishwanath Singh. The petitioners herein claim immunity from the offences they are charged with and justify their bonafides by virtue of accused Rajesh Kumar Singh’s claim of being the adopted son of Late Bishwanath Singh and thereby having an universal plebiscite to - 4 - transfer lands of his allegedly late father to the complete exclusion of the wife and daughter of Late Bishwanath Singh. The assertions on behalf of the petitioners revolve round pure questions of facts which can neither be thrashed out nor decided by means of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and can only be done by leading evidence in proof thereof in a full dressed trial in court. I find no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J) Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 24th October,2008 Nawal Kishore Singh/ A.F.R.