IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7198 of 2009 1. DEVENDRA SINGH, SON OF LATE MANGAL PRASAD. 2. YOGENDRA SINGH, SON OF LATE NARAYAN SINGH. 3. JALESHWAR SINGH, SON OF LATE HARVANSH NARAYAN SINGH. 4. KEDAR NATH SINGH, SON OF LATE RAMDEO SINGH. 5. BRIJ KISHORE SINGH, SON OF LATE RAMA SHANKAR SINGH. 6. BINOD KISHORE SINGH, SON OF LATE RAMA SHANKAR SINGH. 7. ABHAY KUMAR SINGH, SON OF RAMESHWAR SINGH. 8. PAPPU SINGH, SON OF LATE SHRI KANT SINGH. 9. RANTU SINGH, SON OF ASHOK SINGH. PETITIONER NO.1 TO 9 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BHARTHAI, P.S.-JIRADEI, DISTRICT-SIWAN. 10. ASRE ALAM 11. HUSNE ALAM BOTH SONS OF MD. GULBAHAR MIAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PIPRA, P.S.-MANJHAGARH, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ. 12. DHARM DUBEY 13. OM PRAKASH DUBEY 14. KANHAIYA DUBEY 15. BHAJAN DUBEY 16. DHURB DUBEY PETITIONER NO.12 TO 16 ARE SONS OF LATE NAND DUBEY. 17. RAJESH DUBEY, SON OF DHURB DUBEY. 18. YOGENDRA DUBEY, SON OF LATE CHANDRADEO DUBEY PETITIONER NOS. 12 TO 18 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- FULWARIYA, P.S.-MANJHAGARH, DISTRICT-GOPALGANJ. 19. GIRISH SINGH, SON OF DEVENDRA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BHARTHAI, P.S.-JIRADEI, DISTRICT-SHIWAN. ……PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. MANJOOR AHMAD, SON OF LATE ABDUL RAHMAN. RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-FULWARIA, P.O. & P.S.- MANJHAGARH, DISTRICT-GOPALGANJ. ……..OPPOSPITE PARTIES. ----------- For the petitioner : Satish Chandra Mishra : Md. Nurul Hoda For O.P. No.2 : Naresh Prasad – 1 For the State : Damodar Prasad Tiwary, A.P.P. 3 16.12.2010 Heard This is petition for quashing the order dated 2 26.2.2007 passed by Shri Sheo Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Gopalganj in Trial No.2924 of 2007 by which cognizance has been taken for offence under Sections 418, 419 and 465. The prosecution case as alleged in Complaint petition that the complainant has purchased the land by registered sale deed and it is alleged that the accused person no.1 to 9 executed a sale deed in favour of accused no.10 and 11 on 10-10-2000 and accused no.12 to 16 executed a sale deed to accused no.10 and 11 and hence it is alleged that the sale deed are with regard to the land of the petitioner and hence is a forged document. It has further been alleged that after the knowledge the complainant asked the accused persons why they have executed the forged sale deed and asked them to executed a deed of surrender but accused refused. It has further alleged that the accused persons pointed out dagger and took the thumb impression of complainant. However, on solemn affirmation of the complainant and statement of witnesses the cognizance taken for offence under Section 418, 419, 465. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent no.12 to 16 are descendants of Nandjee who are original owner and Fulpati Kuer had filed a case against Nandji bearing T.S. No.140 of 1976 for partition of the land. She claim to have purchase from original owner and the suit was dismissed. Hence the suit itself shows the claim of 3 Nandjee which compelled Fulpati to file suit against Nandji. Hence from the nature of the allegation no offence is made out even on the allegation made in complaint taken to be true on the face value of the complaint petition. The allegation made is complaint petition is that original owner sold the land in 1947 to one Fulpati Kuer. On death of Fulpati his son Krishna Bihari came in possession and Krishna Bihari executed sale deed on 6.1.1999 to complaint and his two brothers put in possession. The accused person in conspiracy has constituted forged sale deeds executed by accused no.1 to 4 and accused 12 to 16 separately in favour of accused no.10 and 11 and complaint asked the accused to execute deed of surrender (Ladavi) which was refused. Hence question for consideration whether allegation made out an offence. However, the allegations made that sale deed is forged as sale deed is with regard to the land claimed by him. The forgery has been defined in Section 463 that who ever makes a false document to lay claim. However false document defined in Section 464 IPC. Three conditions mentioned for deciding a document as false document. First if a person dishonestly and fraudulently makes mark denoting the execution of a document with an intention of causing it to be believed that such document was signed 4 sealed by the authority of a person by whom he knows that it was not made i.e. if the document is sign and seal of an authority to be believed that document is sealed and signed by that authority. However this is not the case. The second clause of Section 464 that if someone alters a document, however this is also not the case. The third conditions that if one cause any person to sign, execute, alter a document when the person due to unsoundness, intoxication and deception could not know the content of the document. However, there is even no such allegations that signature was taken on deed by deception or intoxication or unsoundness without intimating the content so this is also not applicable. The case is also not covered by any of exception as under there is neither allegation that document was executed by impersonation or signature of the executants was false or forged and hence non of the ingredients of Section 464 is made out to hold that the document is forged document. Hence having regard to the fact and circumstance, what ever allegation made does not comes under definition of false document and hence the offence under Section 465 has not made out as per allegation. So far as the offence of cheating is concerned there is neither any allegation of deception to the complainant nor the complainant parted with the property inconsequence of any deception made to the complainant nor the complainant parted with any money. Hence neither 5 465 nor 420 nor 120B itself is made out. Hence having regard to the fact and circumstance of the case and taking the entire allegation on face value of complaint petition to be true does not make out an offence and moreover it appears to be as claim of civil right by the parties and is civil dispute deciding the right of parties. The criminal court has no jurisdiction to decide the right or title of the party and hence that the learned magistrate appears to have taken cognizance without due application of mind to the facts and circumstance of case in mechanical manner and hence the impugned order is set aside and the application is allowed. PN ( Gopal Prasad,J.)