IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33918 of 2006 MAHBOOB ALAM @ MD.MAHABOOB ALAM Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 6 7.8.2008 Heard Mr. Bhola Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, learned A.P.P.for the State. Although O.P. No. 2 the complainant was duly served with notice by both process yet he has curiously chosen not to appear and contest the case. The petitioner seeks the quashing of order dated 28.5.2004 passed in Complaint Case No. 1406 of 2003 by Sri S. Rajak, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Katihar, whereby he has taken cognizance under section 420 I.P.C. against the petitioner and other co-accused. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is a mere scribe / deed writer and he cannot be held liable or responsible for any act of cheating which may have occurred out of a conspiracy between vendor of property and his witnesses. The primary duty of scribe / deed writer is merely to scribe the deed as per the desire of the vendor or the vendee. It was sought to be pointed out that only allegation in the complaint petition against the - 2 - petitioner is in paragraph 10 of the complaint petition which states that the accused Mahboob Mandal (Alam), Subodh Mandal are the identifiers of the executant of the said sale deed. From perusal of the deed in question it appears that the same was scribed on 20.3.1990 and the vendor in the said deed was one Tufani Mandal. As per Annexure 3 which is the death certificate of Tufani Mandal he died on 24.12.1998, much after the deed had been executed and registered. Since the deed appears to have been executed and registered almost 8 years prior to the death of Tufani Mandal the suspicion on the petitioner of having identified the wrong persons does not stand to reason. Due regard being had to the discussions made above the impugned order so far as the petitioner is concerned is hereby quashed and the application is allowed. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)