IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.20703 of 1999 ASHA SINGH, Wife of Sri Vijay Kumar Singh, resident of Village-Tiyar, Police Station-Andar, District-Siwan , at present residing at Fatehpur, Nayei Bazar Pokhar, Gosala Road, Police Station-Siwan Town, District- Siwan ------ Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Mahesh Prasad, Son of Late Jagarnath Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Phakhpur, Police Station-Siwan Town, District-Siwan -------------------------- Opp.Parties. with Cr.Misc. No.4206 of 1999 BINOD KUMAR SINGH, Son of Kedar Nath Singh, resident of Village-Tiyar, P.S. Andar, District-Siwan, at present residing at Fatehpur, Nayei Bazar Pokhar, Gosalar Road, P.S. Siwan Town, District-Siwan -------------- Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Mahesh Prasad, Son of Late Jagarnath Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Phakhpur, Police Station-Siwan Town, District-Siwan ----------------------- Opp.Parties. ------------- For the petitioners: Sri Udit Narayan Singh, Advocate For Opp.Party no.2: Sri Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. ----------- 09 12-04-2010 Petitioners in both the cases have challenged the order dated 24.11.1998 passed by Sri M.K.Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Siwan in Trial No.813 of 1999, arising out of Complaint Case No.788 of 1998. By the said order, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 465,467,468, 120(B) and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases has taken ground that they had purchased the land in question from the vendor , who was actually having right and title over the 2 land in question. He submits that the complainant was also one of the share-holders of the land in question and, as such, the petitioners, who had purchased the land from the vendor, have committed no offence. He further submits that after getting the sale deed executed petitioners got possession of the land and when they were disturbed by the complainant, the petitioners filed a suit before the competent court and they also got an order of injunction in their favour. On these grounds petitioners have made a prayer for quashing of the order of cognizance. Sri Binod Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party no.2 has refuted the submission of the petitioners and submits that the land, which was sold by the vendor, was actually exclusive land of the complainant and, as such, the vendor as well as the petitioners and others connived with each other and thereafter a forged document was prepared. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw both the petitions with a liberty to produce the order of injunction as well as other documents at the stage of charge and will produce before the appropriate forum. The prayer of the petitioners is allowed. Accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty that if at the stage of charge the petitioners produce certain documents in support of their cases, the learned Magistrate will examine the same in accordance with law. 3 Of course, those documents are to be looked into at the stage of defence, but in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case it is necessary to allow the petitioners to produce such document at the stage of charge and the learned Magistrate will examine the same in accordance with law, while hearing on the charge matter. Accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed as withdrawn. In this case, earlier by order of this Court the proceeding in the court below was stayed and order of stay is still continuing. In view of the dismissal of the aforesaid petitions, the order of stay stands automatically vacated. Let this order be sent to the court below forthwith. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J )