Criminal Miscellaneous No.24031 OF 1999 ------ In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------- 1.BHAGWAT YADAV son of Shri Swetamber Yadav, 2.Ram Prasad Yadav son of late Waris Lal Yadav 3.Balram Jha son of Saryug Jha 4.Chhedi Yadav son of late Baua Yadav 5.Amrendra Kumar Yadav @ Amrendra Yadav son of Shri Ram Dulai Yadav 6.Jagdeo Yadav son of Shri Balram Yadav 7.Satyadeo Yadav son of Shri Balram Yadav 8.Ram Narayan Yadav son of Shri Moti Yadav 9.Moti Yadav son of late Sundar Yadav 10.Satrughna Yadav son of Shri Baldeo Yadav 11.Ram Dutta Yadav son of late Sundar Yadav 12.Ram Prasad Yadav son of late Dhani Yadav 13.Dukhan Yadav son of late Kusum Lal Yadav 14.Laturi Choudhary son of late Suhi Choudhary 15.Bechan Yadav son of lae Jagat Yadav 16.Kamleshwari Yadav son of late Neti Yadav 17.Raj Kumar Sah son of Shri Ram Kishun Sah 18.Binod Yadav son of Shri Bechan Yadav All residents of village-Singiawan, P.S.-Kishanpur, Dist.-Supaul 19.Shree Lal Yadav son of Sri Dular Yadav 20.Prayag Yadav son of Sri Gulab Yadav Both are resident of village-Mehasimar, P.S.-Kishanpur, Dist.-Supaul. …… …….Petitioners Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Sanichari Devi wife of late Gangay Yadav, resident of Singiawan, P.S.-Kishanpur, Dist.-Supaul ……. ……Opp. Parties. ------ For the petitioners: Mr.Ranjan Kumar Jha & Mr.Thakur Manish Mohan For opp. party no.2 : Mr.Pramod Mishra & Mr.Vivek Kumar For the State: Mr.Shailendra Kumar ------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ------ Rakesh Kumar,J. Twenty petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal 2 Procedure, have prayed for quashing of the order dated 12.4.1999 passed in G.R. No.16 of 1997(Kishanpur P.S.Case No.111 of 1996) by Shri C. Ram, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Supaul. By the said order the learned Magistrate has framed charges against the petitioners for the offences under sections 468, 465, 469 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2 filed a complaint case before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul, alleging therein that the accused persons conspiring with each other prepared forged adoption deed only with a view to dispossess the complainant from the property/landed property which she shall be entitled to get after partition. The said complaint was transferred to the police for its registration and investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, accordingly, first information report vide Kishanpur P.S. Case No.111 of 1996 was registered for the offences under sections 465, 467, 468, 469 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. After registering the case, the police investigated the same and thereafter charge sheet was submitted. After submission of the charge sheet, by order dated 21.5.1998 the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences, as mentioned above, and finally by the impugned order charges were framed against the petitioners. Aggrieved with the order of framing of charge, the accused persons preferred the present petition. 3. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that even though there is no 3 material on the record to connect the petitioners, the learned Magistrate in a mechanical manner has passed the order of framing of charge by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while referring to paragraph 12 of the present petition, submits that it was a case of exaggeration. He submits that on the allegation of preparing forged adoption deed about twenty persons have been made accused. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners such allegation prima facie appears to be improbable. Learned counsel has also referred to paragraph 14 of the petition and submits that when the informant lost the mutation case for the land in question, the present complaint was filed by her maliciously and accordingly he has prayed for quashing of the order of framing of charge. 4. Mr. Shailendra Kumar, A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. He pointed out that perusal of the first information report itself makes it clear that the offences were committed by the accused persons. He further submits that at the time of framing of charge, the learned Magistrate was required to examine as to whether a prima facie case is made out or not and for the purpose of framing of charge, there was no requirement to give a detailed reason. Accordingly, he has prayed for rejection of the present petition. 5. Mr. Pramod Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 has also opposed the prayer for the petitioners. 6. Besides, hearing learned counsel for the parties, I 4 have also examined the materials available on the record particularly the first information report. I am of the view that while framing of charge, the learned Magistrate has committed no error and, as such, it is not proper to interfere with the matter that too while exercising power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner has not made out an exceptional case warranting this court to exercise such power. 7. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the petition stands rejected. 8. In this case by order dated 9.2.2000, this court had directed that in the meanwhile, further proceedings in G.R. No.16 of 1997 (Kishnapur P.S. Case No.111 of 1997) pending in the court of Sri C.Ram, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Supaul, shall remain stayed. Subsequently, the present petition was admitted on 9.3.2000 and while admitting the case it was directed that pending disposal of this application interim order dated 9.2.2000 shall continue. 9. In view of rejection of the present petition, the interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. Patna High Court The 3rd May, 2010 NAFR/Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)