IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41171 of 2007 BINOD KUAMR MISHRA SON OF LATE BAIDYANATH MISHRA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHAT SIMAR,TOLA NIZAMAT,P.S. RAJNAGAR,DISTRICT MADHUBANI ----- PETITIONER Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR & MOSOMAT MAHASUNDARI MISHRAYAN WIFE OF LATE UDESHWAR MISHRA @ UPENDRA NARAYAN MISHRA ------ OPP.PARTIES ----- For the petitioner : Dr.Mrityunjaya Kumar Gautam For the State : Mr.G.Prasad Gupta, Addl.P.P. For the O.P.No.2 : Mr.Vijay Kumar ------ 03/ 26.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.06.2007 passed in E.No.15 of 2007/C.No. 189 of 2007 by Sri Suresh Kumar Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Madhubani by which the court after finding a prima facie case under Sections 420, 506 and 386 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons has ordered for issuance of summons to them. A complaint case was filed by opposite party no.2 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani vide Complaint Case No. 189 of 2007 against the petitioner and two others in which it was alleged that at the District Registration Office, Madhubani the complainant, who was having no son, was duped by the accused persons. It has been further alleged that the complainant was not paid the consideration amount which was agreed between the parties and the land was transferred in connivance with the petitioner and other accused persons. It appears that the alleged place of occurrence is office of District Registrar, Madhubani. The basic grievance of the complainant has arisen out of a deed of registration which is annexure-2 to this application, from which it appears that the land was registered and the complaint was aggrieved on account of certain conduct of the accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is neither identifier nor a witness of the alleged sale deed dated 05.01.2007. The petitioner was not even present in the Registration office on 05.01.2007 because on that very date he was present in his office at Raj Nagar and there he was discharging his duties where he was clerk to S.D.O., Western Koshi Canal, Sub- Division No.2, Raj Nagar, Madhubani. While opposing the prayer of the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 has submitted that as the petitioner has committed the role of forgery, the impugned order is correct and requires no interference by this Court. It appears that the grievance of the complainant is with regard to some entries of a sale deed. For that the complainant can take recourse to civil litigation if she wants annulment of the registered sale deed which has been allegedly registered on the basis of some illegal act. In my opinion, no criminal offence is made out against the petitioner. Hence the order dated 28.06.2007, so far it relates to the petitioner only, is set aside and consequently, the entire proceeding initiated against the petitioner is quashed. In the result, this application is allowed. Tahir/- ( Shyam Kishore Sharma, J. )