IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29559 of 2007 1. DEONATH SINGH SON OF LATE RAM JAGI SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SONAPA, POLICE STATION- RAJPUR, DISTRICT- BUXAR. 2. DIGVIJAY CHAUBEY SON OF LATE INDRAJIT CHAUBEY, RESDIENT OF VILLAGE GOSAIPUR, POLICE STATION- RAJPUR, DISTRICT- BUXAR. 3. VIJAY KUMAR SINGH, S/O- BADRI SINGH, R/O- VILLAGE- NAWAR, P.S. RAJPUR, DISTRICT- BUXAR. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2.A DHARMSHEELA DEVI, W/O- HARINARAYAN YADAV, R/O- VILLAGE NAWAR, P.S.- RAJPUR, DISTRICT BUXAR. 2.B DHANMUNA DEVI, W/O- SURESH YADAV, R/O- VILLAGE NAWAR, P.S.- RAJPUR, DISTRICT BUXAR. For the petitioners : Mrs.. M. Chatterjee, Advocate. ----------- 10 05.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. No body appeared on behalf of the substituted heirs of O.P. no. 2 although duly executed Vakalatnama on their behalf has been filed. Petitioners seek quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out Buxar P.S. case no. 167 of 1998 instituted under Sections 420, 461, 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant (original O.P. no. 2) filed the aforesaid case alleging therein that he had no male issue and his wife had pre deceased him. Only remaining legal heirs to the informant were his two daughters (substituted O.Ps) who looked after him and his properties. He was satisfied with their services and accordingly he executed a deed of gift in their favour on 20.3.1998 with regard to land measuring 3 acres and odd. It came to his notice that accused Vijay Kumar Singh had filed a Mutation case in the 2 Court of Circle officer, Rajpur in Mutation Case no. 3/1998-99 claiming therein that the informant had already executed a registered deed of gift dated 12.9.1990 in his favour. It is to be noted here that the aforesaid Vijay Kumar Singh is own nephew of the original O.P. no. 2 (informant). On inquiry made from the office, the informant come to know that aforesaid co-accused Vijay Kumar Singh, in conspiracy with other accused persons, had got a registered gift deed executed impersonating another person as the informant. Petitioners herein was cited as witness to the execution of the said deed of gift. On these allegations. The F.I.R. was lodged which gave rise to the order taking cognizance dated 16.7.1998. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the case, original O.P. no. 2 (Dil Ram Singh) died. Consequently an application was filed in the present proceeding whereby aforesaid O.P. no. 2 Dilram Singh was substituted by his two daughters namely Dharmisheela Devi and Dhanmuna Devi. It is further submitted that the aforesaid daughters (substituted O.Ps herein) filed a Title Suit no. 60 of 1998 for setting aside the deed of gift dated 12.9.1990 which was allegedly forged and fabricated document. It is the contention of the petitioners that the plaintiffs of the aforesaid suit namely the two daughters of the original informant subsequently compromised the said suit and accepted the genuineness of the aforesaid deed of gift dated 12.9.1990 executed in favour of the 3 co-accused Vijay Singh. Referring to Annexure-2, it is submitted that the substituted O.Ps deposed in the aforesaid Title Suit no. 60 of 1998 wherein they accepted in unambiguous terms about the compromise between them and the defendants. It is next contended that on the strength of the aforesaid compromise, a decree has been passed by learned Munsif, Buxar on 21.4.2003 which is placed on record at Annexure-2/C. It is further submitted that the two daughters of the informant have already filed an application in the present proceeding wherein they have sought compounding of the offences. The said document is at Annexure- 3. Learned counsel, referring to the contents of the said document submits that it has been categorically stated therein that the two daughters of the informant have accepted the genuineness of the aforesaid deed of gift dated 12.9.1990. On the strength of these facts appearing from the record, it is contended that the continuance of the present criminal proceeding shall be sheer abuse of the process of the Court and the same requires to be interfered with and quashed in the ends of justice. Learned counsel further highlights that in a civil suit, the genuineness of the document has to be tested but in the present case the plaintiffs have already admitted that the deed of gift dated 12.91990 are genuine. Continuance of this proceeding will run a risk of recording a finding contrary to the decree passed by a court of competent jurisdiction. . 4 Learned counsel on behalf of the State is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. Consequently, I am convinced that the continuance of the present criminal proceeding shall be abuse of the process of the Court and the same requires to be interfered with and quashed .Accordingly the application is allowed. Entire criminal proceeding arising out of Buxar Town P.S. case no. 167 of 1998 (G.R. no. 858 of 1998 (Tr. No. 459 of 2007) including the order taking cognizance is hereby quashed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )